Preamble

The House met at Eleven o clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DOCKS

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have been given notice of any intention by the Government to make a statement this morning on the situation in the docks?

Mr. Speaker: No. I have received no such information.

Mr. Wilson: Then may I ask the only resident of the Government Front Bench, the Minister for Trade, if he will communicate urgently to the Government the need for a statement? We understand the sub judice position, on which the House has not yet ruled, but we want to know what the Government will do to safeguard supplies. Surely this morning the Government should have made a statement?

Orders of the Day — CARRIAGE BY RAILWAY BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 6

ACTIONS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES RELATING TO CARRIAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONVENTIONS

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 6, leave out "against".

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is purely a formal, drafting Amendment. The keen eyes of their Lordships noted that the word "against" which appears at the end of the third line on page 5 fully covered the word "against" which the Amendment deletes.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. As the Bill went through all its stages in this House almost purely formally, and only in the other place was it given any apparent consideration, it might be appropriate for me to thank Members on both sides who gave it very careful consideration in other ways for their courtesy and support in sending this useful Bill on its way to the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker: Whether that is a matter of order is a matter of doubt.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

INDICATION OF ORIGIN ON CERTAIN IMPORTED GOODS

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 11, leave out from "Kingdom" to end of line 16 and insert
subsection (1A) of this section shall apply except as otherwise provided by or under this section.
(1A) If any person, in the course of a trade or business, supplies or offers to supply the goods, then, unless—

(a) the name or mark is accompanied by a conspicuous indication of the country in which the goods were manufactured or produced; or
(b) the name or mark is neither visible in the state in which the goods are supplied or offered nor likely to become visible on such inspection as may reasonably be expected to be made of the goods by a person to whom they are to be supplied;
the person supplying or offering to supply the goods shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of an offence.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that for the convenience of the House we consider with it Lords Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 20, leave out "(1)" and insert "(1A)" and No. 6, in page 2, line 10, leave out "(1)" and insert "(1A)".

11.8 a.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, as an Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 1, after 'indication', insert:
'of origin, consisting either of the word "foreign" or the word "imported" or an indication'.
It is with some trepidation that I enter this controversy, which has gone on for some time, particularly in the other place. I have read the various arguments of different Members and noble Lords about the desirability of having alternatives to what is in Lords Amendment No. 1. I shall not weary those hon. Members who know the arguments. But those of us who have close associations with the retail and wholesale trades have received a number of representations. Being a Co-operative Member. I was very im-

pressed by one letter I received through the secretary of our parliamentary committee from the Chief Chemist of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. He is concerned about canning of certain fruits and points out the very difficult situation that faces canners of fruits in complying with Lords Amendment No. 1, which restores the original position in the Bill, and he asks for some effective and practical discretion to be allowed to the Minister.
Accordingly, I am proposing an alternative which would allow certain flexibility by the trade in conforming with the law but at the same time would meet the intention of the sponsors of the Bill. In another place, resisting an Amendment in these terms, the Government said life would be made more difficult for some traders. Perhaps one or two hon. Members present might be willing to give examples of where, in certain trades, such as textiles, it might be more difficult to conform to the Lords Amendment than with mine.
We have a lot of business to get through—indeed, 53 Bills, one of which is mine, which I am anxious to see carried through. Therefore, I do not want to delay the House, but I hope it will accept that there is a genuine problem. In another place, one of my noble Friends, Lord Shackle-ton, said that this was an important Amendment and suggested that it should be accepted and the Bill retained so that the Government could have time to think out a compromise which might meet the varying interests. My Amendment at least gives the Minister a platform to explain how the Government have reconsidered and to indicate whether, even if they are not accepting my Amendment, they will seek administratively to meet the legitimate complaints of those in industry who see a problem here.
I do not quite accept the explanation that all these things can be handled managerially, that better management and organisation in canning factories, better techniques in other trades and so on, will get through any difficulty. I want to quote from the letter I mentioned earlier from Mr. Dewhurst, Chief Chemist of the CWS. He writes:
However, it would seem reasonable to amend the Bill to include 'foreign' as an alternative to 'imported' and we would be grateful if you would take steps to ensure


this. If it is not done we shall have a stock of canned pears, apricots, etc., on our hands in twelve months time which are not labelled in accordance with the Bill—or Act.
I can assure you that there are Public Analysts in the land who would certainly draw our attention to this breach of the law. The said pears and apricots will have just been canned and the supply will have to last till the next harvest. This, of course, means that a period of six months from the date on which the Act is passed (Section 4(2)) is too short to make any required changes. The appropriate time is something like two years (The Labelling of Food Regulations 1970, made 12th March, 1970, come into operation 1st of January, 1973). Labels have to be printed before the start of the canning season. Before printing, if any amendments are involved, the new art work has to be vetted, if necessary amended, and finally approved. When the new block is made a proof has to be supplied and checked before the Libel is released. This all takes time.
I shall not go on, but there is here a genuine difficulty and various people have problems to face. Their intention is not to circumvent the Bill. I sympathise strongly with those who say that the consumers are entitled to know, and know as much as possible about what they are buying. But one has also to take the interests of the manufacturers and distributors alongside those of the consumers, and my Amendment is aimed only at achieving a fair and harmonious equilibrium between them. It provides a plat form for a short debate to see whether the Government have reached conclusions on how the matter within the Bill should be handled.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Tom Normanton: This morning I am standing in for and giving my full support to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel), who unfortunately is unable to deal in person with this critical stage of the Bill owing to commitments in Europe. I therefore note with some considerable concern the Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 1, moved by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). I was delighted to hear his views, particularly that he does not wish to introduce any provision which might result in the purpose of the Bill being circumvented. I am sure that this will commend itself as an attitude of mind towards the Bill and I am grateful to him for his comment.
I recognise, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides recognise, just as the other place did, the potential problems which might arise in implementing the Bill. I would only comment on this by quoting the words used by Lord Sainsbury when the question of difficulty of labelling in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman has explained was discussed in the other place. Lord Sainsbury expressed the view that this should not be a problem for an efficient manufacturer or processor of canned products. I would have thought that there must be very few Members of this House or the other place who have better and greater experience of this than Lord Sainsbury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East, whose Bill this is, along with the other sponsors, has felt strongly that there should be no fundamental weakening of the Bill by permitting the marking of goods other than with the actual country of origin. At the time, however, there will be situations where, with the best will in the world, without any wish on the part of a manufacturer or processor to deceive the publice, the manufacturer may find himself in a dilemma as to how he should truthfully and accurately disclose in any circumstances laid down by the Bill exactly that is the country of origin of his products. It was with this in mind that the point was covered in Clause 4. In the amended form of Clause 4 there is power to the Secretary of State to give special waivers in circumstances of this kind—for example, concerning fertilisers.
No doubt there are many fertiliser manufacturers who sell under branded names, and their products in the form they are offered would clearly come within the scope of the Bill. Therefore they will be required under the terms of Clause 1 to disclose the country of origin with the contents of their containers. But the sources of these raw materials may vary considerably, literally from day to day. It is this kind of situation which really should be covered by Clause 4. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance.
The hon. Gentleman referred to textiles as if there might be a particular difficulty in that case. I draw his attention to the many representations made to hon. Members on both sides of the House by the textile industry showing deep distress,


almost anger, among many people in the textile industry because of the departure from the original terms of Clause 1 which provided for specifying the country of origin rather than only a disclosure that the products were "foreign", or "imported". I assure the hon. Member for Greenock that the textile industry will look most unhappily on his Amendment for it accepted unreservedly the original. Clause 1. Perhaps later there will be an opportunity to discuss the substantive Amendment, whatever form that may take.
I earnestly hope that the hon. Member for Greenock will accept that there is ample protection for the interests he justifiably drew to the attention of the House. There is ample protection in Clause 4 for genuine cases.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr.Normanton), has gone a considerable way to meet the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). Part of our difficulty arises because the Bill covers such a multiplicity of products of so many different kinds that one has to weigh many varied considerations. The waiver that the hon. Member for Cheadle suggested would go some way to meet the difficulty, but I am inclined to accept the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock.
Like him I am a Co-operative Member of the House. I have no pecuniary interest but I am naturally interested in that sense. I also have a constituency interest in that the 57 varieties of Messrs. Heinz include many cans that will be affected by the Lords Amendment and the Amendment to it.
I will listen with great interest to what the Minister says, but as the debate stands, I take the view that my hon. Friend's Amendment will meet the practical considerations of manufacturers more effectively than the Lords Amendment.
My hon. Friend's Amendment provides three categories. That will mean that one of the disgraces that occurs when buying goods, particularly in London, will cease. Some goods are marked clearly "Empire Made". In my youth, there was an empire. There used also to be Moss's Empire which included

the London Palladium, which offered many vaudeville talents. However, the fact that goods are marked "Empire Made" is now absolutely irrelevant. It tells me nothing. I have no idea of the country of origin.
If we were to proceed on that basis, I would go the whole way and accept the Lords Amendment. However, in the light of the evidence, particularly that relating to food products which need to be maintained and passed through quickly, I agree with my hon. Friend's view. When reprinting of labels is entailed when there is a different country of supply—fruit coming from different parts of the world may entail regearing the whole labelling machinery—there is the possibility of genuine trading losses, and loss to the consumer because of excessive costs. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister will say, but in the interests of consumer protection and on practical grounds, the House would be well advised to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), has highlighted an important problem. On my way to the House this morning, I happened to call into a fishing tackle shop. I noticed the most charming pairs of portable scissors with excellent little leather cases into which they would fit. The leather cases were firmly stamped "Made in Great Britain". They were obviously made from leather in this country. However, into those leather cases with "Made in Great Britain" clearly displayed on them were being put adequate pairs of Hong Kong scissors with "Empire Made" stamped on them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), has highlighted the difficulty in which the House finds itself today. Nobody would deny that the hon. Member for Cheadle is a great expert on the Bill—his knowledge of the textile industry is appropriate to the Bill. However, the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel), is engaged in his important commitments with the European Parliament, or whatever it is called, that sits in Strasbourg, and we are deprived of his attendance. That shows how difficult is the whole problem of attending at Strasbourg.


From anywhere else in Europe there would be an aeroplane in which one could return, probably at the Fees Office's expense, to be present at this debate.
Italy is one of the EEC countries and it is one of the countries that has no scheme for origin marking. It is outside this scheme. The hon. Member for Leicester, South-East may have been bashing the Italians' heads last night on this problem, but it would have been interesting if he had been able to attend today to help us with our deliberations. I am not criticising the skill or ability of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, but the situation highlights the problem with an important Bill affecting all our trading competitors in Europe. I hope that this is a matter to which serious consideration will be given.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I have listened to the argument and I am disturbed about the way in which the Bill has progressed in another place and here. I am persuaded that there is a wide section of opinion that is concerned about origin marking. I say that not because I support any restrictions on trade—I would rather go the other way—but we have to dissociate the requirement of industrialists from consumer protection. The public are to be protected, and for one reason or another they may say that origin marking is particularly important in certain circumstances.
Before Second Reading, I was sent a letter from Pasolds Limited of Slough, which is a member of the Ladybird Group. It had a Gallup survey made for it when 1,000 consumers were interviewed:56 per cent. considered that it was absolutely vital that the country where a garment was made should be shown.
Another aspect is significant. When they were asked which clothing they considered to be of the highest quality and where it came from, 25 per cent. indicated West Germany, 22 per cent. France, 19 per cent. the United States of America, 16 per cent. Canada and 13 per cent. Australia.
It is significant that there is a connection in the consumer's mind between the quality of garments and from where they are derived. The 1,000 people interviewed were asked similar questions about low quality clothing. It is signifi-

cant that 55 per cent. indicated Hong Kong, 28 per cent. Japan, and 19 per cent. China.

11.30 a.m.

If anyone says that the origin of products is of no importance to the consumer they will have to learn from such sample surveys that it is important. There is another line that can be taken. These same people were asked whether there were any countries from which they would prefer not to buy. In that survey 35 per cent. said that they would rather not buy products from Hong Kong, 23 per cent. was the figure for Japan, 17 per cent. for China and 14 per cent. for Russia. This may reflect political prejudices, and it would be quite wrong to have non-tariff barriers. Origin markings are significant for the public and should not be overlooked.

I have been concerned about the unwarranted disappearance in this Private Member's legislation of the hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this is getting very wide of the Amendment. I allowed the point to be referred to, but I do not think that the hon. Member can develop that further.

Mr. Skeet: I will bend to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and return to the Amendment. If we are to have simply the word "imported" we would be back to the original impasse which was reached in the House some time ago when the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) introduced a similar Amendment. That was rejected by the Under-secretary. We are seeking to avoid the situation whereby goods can be brought from abroad and sold as if they were British goods.
One of the difficulties is to ensure that the representations of all trades are taken into account. The garment manufacturers have made their views known and the canned fruit people have been concerned about this. They have said that there are problems. As I understand it, the Bill will cover most of the people in difficulties, because there is provision later to get an exception order. The difficulties can be catered for, but we must not overlook the responsibilities of the consumer. While an industrialist


may be served indirectly by having protection, primarily we are considering whether the consumer is receiving protection. I will confine myself to those remarks at present, and hope that I will catch your eye later Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Cordle: It may be said that it is desirable that the country of origin of imported goods should be clearly shown. In the textile wholesale and manufacturing trade there will be all sorts of problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has highlighted one of the difficulties in passing on imported goods to overseas countries. When one is in Nigeria or Sierra Leone and one goes to Government stores, the store man will be particularly interested to show recently imported goods from the United Kingdom. If it is to be seen clearly on the bolts and the bales and the pieces that these are imported goods, there is a problem. I am sure it is desirable to have the country of origin marked on them.
Another argument is that in the textile world a great number of items are imported and processed in this country, through bleaching or dyeing or printing, with the result that the country of origin would be somewhat smudged. Is it to be said that because the United Kingdom imports from Hong Kong cloth which has to be processed in this country, it has to be marked with the country of origin, or we are to say that it was partly processed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Normanton: This point is covered comprehensively by the Bill and the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, with which it should be and, I hope, will be read. Where goods or materials undergo a substantial and material change in this country, they automatically, under criteria which are not related to the Bill but are already established in legislation and recognised internationally, acquire status as British made. There will therefore be no requirement to indicate the country of origin, meaning Britain, because they would be genuinely and technically British. This point is fully and adequately covered if the Bill is passed in the form in which it left this House to go to another place.
I earnestly hope that my hon. Friend will not press the complexity of this point. I know that it will not be his intention to confuse and it is perhaps I who may have confused him earlier. There is no confusion in the mind of the textile industry on this point of processing imported fabric and converting it into garments. Garments made in this country, regardless of where the material was made, will legitimately be described as "Made in Britain". I hope my hon. Friend will not press this point and cause the Amendment to become a substantive part of the Bill.

Mr. Cordle: I accept that and have nothing more to add.

Mr. John Golding: I support the Amendment because it removes ambiguity and makes it very much more difficult for the overseas manufacturer to evade our legislation. I want to relate this to the pottery industry. During discussion of the problems facing the pottery manufacturers it was put to me that it would be possible, even with origin-marking, for overseas manufacturers to be able to mark their goods in such a way that they could deceive people into believing they were made in this country. For example, villages or areas overseas could be named in such a way that when their name was stamped on the pottery it would give the impression that it was from a British firm of international repute. This Amendment would clear up that situation and make it clear that the material was of foreign origin.

Mr. Skeet: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes his speech, may I put a further point to him? If we take the example of imported wine, I would be no wiser because it might come from Algeria or it might come from France. Those of us who have a taste for these sort of things would probably say that there must be a certificate of origin and that if it was French wine it would be so much better. Surely "imported" alone will not do?

Mr. Golding: The Amendment gives a choice and therefore strengthens the position of consumers and manufacturers in this country.

Mr. John Osborn: We have lived with this issue in Sheffield


for some time. A Sheffield defence fund has been set up to make sure that the name "Sheffield" is not used overseas in respect of something made in a factory or place elsewhere with the implication that it has come from Sheffield, England. We have heard this morning a very interesting example. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) referred to a leather case stamped "Made in England" containing scissors which were stamped "Made in Hong Kong".
The Lords Amendment proposes to insert
the name or mark is accompanied by a conspicuous indication of the country in which the goods were manufactured or produced.
The proposal of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) to insert
 'of origin, consisting either of the word 'foreign' or of the word 'imported' or an indication
does not help. It is vital that the country should be indicated. Therefore, I believe that the hon. Member's Amendment is not adequate and I would much sooner leave the wording as proposed by another place.

Mr. Peter Rost: I wish to express my opposition to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and my support for the Bill and the Lords Amendment. It would perhaps be unfortunate if the hon. Member's Amendment were pressed to a Division, as, if accepted, it might endanger the whole Bill. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House support the Bill. The Minister responsible in another place dealt adequately with this point in Committee. He emphasised that Clause 4 covered the genuine anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Greenock and those who have supported him.
There is not only support on both sides of the House for the principles embodied in the Bill but a great deal of anxiety in the country. It is important that we do not have any more ambiguity about the question of origin than already exists. There will still be a great deal of scope for abuse even if the Bill is approved. People will attempt to get round the legislation by concealing the origin and deceiving the public or not giving them

a choice. One respect which is not covered by the Bill but which may be a source of abuse and therefore a loop hole which should be closed is advertising. Sales direct to the public, particularly through mail order advertising, are increasing, and no indication of the mark of origin is given on advertisements which appear in newspapers or catalogues. This is a serious threat to consumer choice and could lead to considerable deception.
An advertisement of that nature, aimed not directly at consumers but at industry, concerned products which were clearly Japanese products—because an expert could tell that they were—which were surrounded by a picture of a Union Jack. This is an example of the sort of abuse which the Bill attempts to stop, namely, a foreign country using a traditionally British symbol as an indication of British origin to sell its products.
We must do our best to eradicate that type of abuse in the interests of the consumer and to protect the public. I therefore strongly support the Lords Amendment and hope that hon. Members opposite will not press the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenock, which obviously is sincerely meant to assist in clarifying the situation but which, if accepted, would cause greater ambiguity, give greater scope for abuse and encourage contravention of the principles of marks of origin.

11.45 a.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on one point. We are discussing a specific and most interesting Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). Should I deal with his Amendment first and then with the Lords Amendment linked with it, or should they be dealt with simultaneously?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should deal with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and then, after the hon. Member in charge of the Bill has moved the other Amendment, perhaps he will intervene again if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Noble: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Greenock moved the Amendment in a very quiet and


sensible way. However, it raises a fundamental problem about which the House and the other place have had some difficulties, and a change of view has been noticeable on the Front Bench and the back benches.
The Bill was designed to meet a single problem, namely, that certain goods were being brought into this country and were being given a mark which indicated to the ordinary, not very sophisticated purchaser that they had been made in Britain when they had not. It was an attempt, in a fairly narrow but important respect, to limit this sort of passing off or misrepresentation and to protect the consumer.
However, since the Bill began its progress, a considerable number of extra ideas have been imported into the purpose of the Bill. This is perhaps not uncommon or unnatural. But there are people who hope that the Bill gives the go-ahead to origin marking in every shape and form. That is not a policy which the Government can accept in principle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) rightly said, there has been dismay and apprehension, not basically about the narrow point of the Bill, but about the much wider effects of imported cloth on the textile industry. Those of us who know the position have the greatest sympathy with those concerned and understand their nervousness. However, as my noble Friend said in the House of Lords, if the word "imported" instead of "the country of origin" is put in the Bill, this meets the purpose for which the Bill was designed. To that extent I have a natural sympathy with the hon. Member for Greenock, because that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to make sure for the consumer that something which is marked in a way that is intended to mislead does not mislead because of the requirement to have "imported" or "foreign" marked on it.
In the course of our short but interesting debate a number of points have been raised, and if I may I shall spend a few moments commenting on them.
There is a real problem about the canning industry, whether fruit or vegetables, and I noticed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle did, what Lord Sainsbury said in the other place. I am

sorry to say that I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord. Perhaps it is rash for somebody to take on Lord Sainsbury on a technical point, but it so happens that not long ago I was concerned in an industry which did quite a lot of canning, even though we were a small operator. We sold certain goods to Lord Sainsbury's firm, and other firms as well, on a fairly big scale, but we had certain lines in order to keep our business going throughout the year and maintain employment. We were cannning fruit and mixed vegetables.
It is all right for Lord Sainsbury to say that if an industry is efficient it cap be so organised that its runs are sufficiently big to have no labelling and purchasing problems, and so on, but that is not true of the smaller industries which have to fill in a month or so. They have to import fruit, or perhaps salads, and we bought the ingredients wherever we could find them at the right price in order to keep our operations going.

Mr. Normanton: It is a problem, and I am sure that we all recognise it as such, but would not my right hon. Friend agree that the noble Lord expressed the view that the Bill contained adequate machinery to deal with this kind of situation? I welcome the provision for this kind of safeguard in the kind of case which my right hon. Frnend has mentioned. Canning is one example, fertiliser manufacturing is another, and the manufacturing of certain Pharmaceuticals may be yet another, but would not my right hon. Friend agree that Clause 1(4) covers the matter fully and comprehensively?

Mr. Noble: I shall come to the point that my hon. Friend has made, but it is important from the point of view of hon. Members who have expressed their anxieties that I should try to set out as fully as I can the position as I see it, particularly because it was the point very fairly and rightly made by the noble Lord.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle about the way in which the hon. Member for Greenock moved his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman is not trying to circumvent the purposes of the Bill, but is merely seeking clarification about whether the purposes of the Bill can be achieved without doing


damage to people in the retail and wholesale business.
Coming to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle about Clause 1(4), there are a number of matters that will come up for debate, and it is true that if all the Lords' Amendments are accepted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be given considerable discretionary powers—improved since the Bill left this House some time ago—in order to try to deal with the many difficult problems that arise. But it is also fair to say that we shall probably be making exemptions almost night and day as the process goes along, because many people—small traders, small manufacturers, and so on—will not be able easily to comply with the exact wording of the Bill. It was largely for that reason that my noble Friend suggested that if the other place would accept "imported" it would save a great deal of work in the Department and would meet the original point.
If I may put this end of the argument to the House as fairly as I can, I think it is true to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle that if the remaining Lords Amendments appeal to the House and are accepted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have the necessary power to grant the waivers. Though there will be a tremendous number of them, my right hon. Friend is prepared to take on this burden if that is what the House desires him to do, but the purpose of the Bill would be met adequately by the use of the word "imported" or "foreign".

Mr. Skeet: No. The United States has compulsory origin marking. There are large and small firms there. Apparently they have no difficulty with crops from abroad which have to be switched. They can change the labelling without any great expense. Surely the consumer must be protected here and we must not allow administrative arrangements all the time to stand in the way of protecting the consumer who is most important?

Dr. Mabon: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene before he replies to his hon. Friend. This is getting rather interesting. May I take it that the lukewarm response of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends to what he is saying means that they will not make

sure that the administrative arrangements which have been referred to are adequate? Is the right hon. Gentleman getting that impression? If he is, our attitude will harden.

Mr. Noble: I know the weight of feeling on this issue on both sides of the House. All that I am trying to do is to be as fair as I can to the House by giving hon. Members the position as I see it. I shall come in a moment to the problem of the consumer, because he is important. What we are dealing with in the Bill is not whether we should have "country of origin" rules as the Americans do and which are often a considerable non-tariff barrier to trade. What we are trying to do is to see that in the narrow respects covered by the Bill the consumer is given the best indication—that he is not misled. We are dealing only with items which are trying to be passed off as British. In that narrow respect, if the word "imported" were put on it would meet the point.

12 noon

But there are other things which the consumer would like to know in general—and this is what my hon. Friend is trying to suggest—though that is not part of the purposes of the Bill, and for a whole range of reasons. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) who gave the result of a survey in which people had specific views about whether they wanted to buy clothes from Hong Kong, Japan, China, America or other places. I do not say that that is not something which many people want to know about. There are many people who do, and I respect that if that is what is wanted.

That is not basically what the Bill is about, and even if we accepted—as the Government are prepared to do—that we should go back to "country of origin", with the difficulties which that necessarily imports administratively, that would not cover what the consumer is said to be asking for, which is that goods of all sorts should be marked with their country of origin. We are dealing with two different things. But I am delighted that this opportunity exists for people to express a perfectly right argument, because the consumers are very important. If consumers feel strongly about things, their opinions should be listened to in the House, however irrelevant they may


be to the particular Bill we happen to be discussing at present.

I have probably spoken for long enough on this Amendment. The pottery point was raised by the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) raised the Sheffield point, with which we have lived for a great many years. I know how strongly they have defended the quality of their goods. These things are all points which ought to be brought out.

On this Amendment, my position is to some extent neutral. My right hon. Friend is prepared to cope with the waivers that will be possible by the time that these Lords Amendments have gone through the House, and is prepared to face the considerable amount of work that will inevitably be involved and to try to see that where no waiver is given, the country of origin, if it is reasonable, should be put on in this narrow area.

But if the House feels strongly that "imported" covers the needs of industry and the consumer, in the end I could accept that equally well, for the obvious reason that it was what my noble Friend was arguing strongly in another place.

Mr. Alan Williams: It is a great pity that in this debate we are denied the presence of the Undersecretary of State for Trade and Industry, who dealt with the matter when it was last in this House. It would have been of great assistance to us had we had a degree of continuity. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary now appear in the Chamber, because I was about to seek assurances on his continued good health.
We have here today yet again the firm squelch of Tory Government. I should like to quote the Under-Secretary's remarks when this matter was last debated. Speaking on behalf of the Government, he said:
The public are generally suspicious of wider terms or connotations such as 'foreign' or 'Empire', which terms were permitted under the old Merchandise Marks Act. Many people felt that these were cloaks under which a variety of origins could be hidden. For example, there may well be a lot of difference, in the public's mind, between a radio made, say, in Germany and one made in Hong Kong.

In such circumstances, the mark 'foreign' does not give that clear indication which the consumer has a right"—
"a right"—
to expect if we go forward with the Bill. Much the same applies to textiles, for example, French silk as opposed to silk from Thailand or, again, from Hong Kong. Our firm impression and information"—
this was a Government spokesman speaking—
is that there is a desire that we should hold to the requirements that indicate the precise origin.
Lest there be any confusion, and because I do not want to do the hon. Gentleman any injustice, I shall continue with two other brief quotations from the same speech:
I have myself been a manufacturer"—
we have just heard that the right hon. Gentleman was a manufacturer. We have had the benefit of his manufacturing experience. Here we have the benefit of the Under-Secretary's manufacturing experience—businessmen's government at its best. The hon. Gentleman said:
I have myself been a manufacturer, when I was able to wear other hats, and I know that it is not an uncommon practice to have to change the labelling or marking on articles which one is manufacturing or packaging. I feel, therefore, that that argument can be somewhat inflated in this general context.
Then, summing up the Government's view of the virtually identical Amendment which had been proposed, the Undersecretary said:
but it is my judgment that the Amendment would weaken rather than strengthen the Bill."—[Official Report, 14th April, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 1596.]
Now we know why the Under-secretary was not invited to take part in the debate, although at least we know that he does not have other commitments which would prevent him from being present. He was able to pop in to see that we were all enjoying ourselves and that the debate was progressing well.

Mr. Noble: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to be unfair to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend took that particular stage of the Bill because at the time I was out of the country. It is within my departmental responsibility to decide these things. It is not within that of my hon. Friend. As the hon.


Gentleman will know or, perhaps, will learn one day if he comes into government, what so often happens in these matters is that industry does not wake up to some of the smaller problems until a good deal too late in the consideration of our affairs. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we put forward in the other place many reprsentations from different industries which were simply not available when this matter was discussed here.

Mr. Williams: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's hopes for my future education at the Dispatch Box. However, I should point out to him that I had several years' experience at the Dispatch Box and, indeed, in the precursor of the present Ministry. I understand the difficulties which can arise when a Minister responsible is wafted out of the country. I do not dispute that that was the real reason for the Under-Secretary's presence on the earlier occasion. It is still a great pity, however, that the Under-Secretary was not present to give us the benefit of the new official advice which he has received within the Department.
This seems to be yet another example of Conservative revolutionary government. I do not mean Red Ted at No. 10. I mean revolutionary in the revolving door sense rather than the political sense. If one waits long enough, one meets the Government coming back again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating a rather narrow Amendment.

Mr. Williams: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It is a rather narrow Amendment but it has gained in several aspects since it was last in this House. What I am trying to say is that we are being asked to accept a certain point of view on the basis of firm convictions on the part of the Government, when the Government have had other firm convictions, which were somewhat different, on exactly the same subject during the same time. The Government's capacity to carry out intellectual pirouettes is improving. One does not now have to wait so long to see them coming back on themselves in their statements.
The Under-Secretary once said to me from the Dispatch Box that the then Government's left hand did not know

what their right hand was doing. But the present Government's left face does not know what their right face is doing. Do Ministers actually talk to each other about policy? Do Ministers even within the same Department speak to each other about a policy?
It is remarkable that on 14th April we heard the Under-Secretary making the statements that I have just quoted, and within a month and a couple of days later, in the other place, we had a complete reversal of the Government's position. We are entitled to ask the Government what consultation they had before they took up their original pose and what has happened in the meantime to alter their opinion. It was interesting that an expert in the other place, Lord Sainsbury, echoed the views of the Under-Secretary, not the present views of the Minister for Trade.
We still believe, as do the sponsors of the Bill, that Clause 1(4) provides every safeguard for where exceptions are needed. The public had a right, according to the Government in April. The public should have the same right now. It cannot be a right in April and cease to be a right simply because it happens that a particular vested interest has exerted a rather strong lobby upon the Government.
Therefore, the Government should give us more information about the reason for their change of position. They should tell us why they did not have the information previously and why they did not establish correct information. They had the economic development councils. They had plenty of consultative bodies available to them. They had their industrial contacts and their advisers. The Department is large enough: it has sufficient officials and Ministers.
Why is this short period must we be faced with this complete volte-face? As with the Consumer Council, as with the Crowther Report, as with prices and as with the refusal to implement definition orders and marking orders, if ever there is a conflict between the consumer interest and the commercial interest the present Government will back the commercial interest.
Hon. Members can rightly feel offended that a Private Member's Bill which was approved in this House was then altered


substantially in a way which the Undersecretary of State—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems that the hon. Gentleman's arguments are now directed to the Lords Amendment and not to the Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide. He intimated to me earlier that he wished to speak on the Lords Amendment. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is now making that speech.

Mr. Williams: Perhaps I did not clarify why I feel entitled to do this, Mr. Speaker. The Lords amended their own Amendment. They had an Amendment imposed by the Government which coincides with the Amendment which you are now asking me to discuss. This is why I feel that it is in order to refer to both debates. They cover exactly the same ground and exactly the same Amendment.
Lords Amendment No. 1, as it comes to us, is yet another variation on the theme and puts us back more as the sponsors would, I presume, wish us to be. I believe that my remarks are more apposite to the Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment than they would be if I were to make them on the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: So be it, as long as the hon. Gentleman does not seek to make the same speech again on the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Williams: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have absolutely no intention of doing so. Indeed, unless utterly provoked, I have no intention of speaking on the Lords Amendment.
It is up to the Government now to explain what happened, what circumstances changed and why the machine failed to give the information in April that it gave in May and apparently is still giving.
How does the right hon. Gentleman, as the Government Minister responsible, envisage Clause 1(4) operating? It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in that regard would reassure some of my colleagues who have expressed doubts about the effectiveness of this provision. I do not share my colleagues' doubts, but it would be useful if guidance could be given. I myself support the original Bill and, therefore, I

oppose the Amendment which the Government have tried to write into the Bill.

Mr. David Crouch: I shall certainly endeavour to keep exactly within the scope of the Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment. I feel that I must comment, having spoken on Second Reading. I never thought that I should have to speak again. As the Bill got such a clear passage through this House from the Front Bench and such a warm welcome from both sides, it is strange that it should have been so emasculated and shattered in the House of Lords.
As a back bencher speaking in support of a Private Members' Bill I express my very serious concern. From a seated position I even used the word to my right hon. Friend that I was "hostile" to his approach today. No one can ever feel hostile to my right hon. Friend. He is far too nice a person, and he has been far too nice this morning in trying to beguile us into accepting this complete emasculation of a Bill which the consumers want and which the trade are prepared to accept.
have received many representations from the trade to stand up this morning and to ensure that the Bill goes through in its original form. I have had representations from traders and from manufacturers. The House knows that on previous occasions in the House—during the passage of the Trade Descriptions Bill, 1968, and on Second Reading of this Bill—I have said that I have had 20 years' experience of trade marks and have always been an exponent of letting the consumer know as much as possible about what he or she is buying.

12.15 p.m.

Whether those consumers who want to know the country of origin are in the majority or in the minority, the fact is that many people want to know the country of origin. They want to know whether the product comes from Hong Kong—not because they dislike Hong Kong products or have any feeling of discrimination about buying from a country that can compete with Britain effectively on price, for instance, but because they feel sometimes that imported products from places such as Hong Kong do not observe the rules of safety in


production and health—for example, with toys—that this country accepts as normal standards.

To say that it is good enough to say that such a product is imported is not to accept the real meaning of the Bill as it was originally presented to this House.

I cannot accept from my right hon. Friend that the meaning and purpose of the Bill is merely to indicate that a product is not from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Noble: I very carefully did not say that. What I said was the purpose of the Bill was to deal with a very narrow section of goods only—namely, those which were being passed off, with the intention of misleading the consumer, by pretending that they were British. Much of the rest of the argument, though I agree with it in some degree, is irrelevant to the Bill. In the case of the small number of items—or, perhaps, the large number of items—which are being passed off deliberately to mislead the consumer, into thinking that they are British, "imported" kills that problem. That is all that I said.

Mr. Crouch: I withdraw the first criticism that I made. I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend has made. In my speech on Second Reading, which I do not now have in front of me, I believe I said that the whole attitude of the old Board of Trade and the present Department of Trade and Industry on the question of marking, going back about 50 years, has always been directed towards preventing merchandise from being passed off as appearing to come from the United Kingdom. Obviously this is still the thinking.
My right hon. Friend asks—will we accept his attitude to the Bill and not accept the Lords Amendment? [Interruption.] He says—will we allow the Bill to go forward as amended in the Lords, namely, so that it refers to goods as being imported without a definition of country of origin? My right hon. Friend asks us to accept a Bill which is not in the spirit in which we understood it when we debated it on Second Reading.
My right hon. Friend used an argument which he must know cannot impress us: he said that it would save work in his Department. In the Bill we are trying to do something to protect the

consumer. A large number of hon. Members are present on a Friday to ensure that the consumers are protected. I know that my right hon. Friend has this as the basic purpose in his mind even if he does not see it as the basic purpose written into the Bill.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will show that the House of Commons, even on a Friday afternoon when considering a Private Members' Bill, will remember that real purpose and not allow it to be changed for some wordy explanations that might satisfy him but which will not satisfy us.

Mr. John Roper: I begin by declaring an interest. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) I have a close connection with the Co-operative movement, which has both textile and canning interests and, therefore, has a considerable interest in this matter. I also have constituency interests with the textile industry. I therefore welcome any measure which ensures further protection for the consumer.
The Minister for Trade has made it quite clear that there is a problem in certain industries which could be dealt with in one of two ways. It could be dealt with, as is apparent in Clause 1(4), either by the use of discretionary waivers by the Department for industries such as the canning industry, which involves mixed vegetables some of which come from one country and others from another country, or alternatively by incorporating the subordinate Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).
In many ways I think that my hon. Friend's Amendment would lead to considerable administrative simplicity, and perhaps to a reduction of work involved in the detailed study by the Department of Trade and Industry, which it seems to me would be meeting the objective of the sponsors of the Bill in ensuring that the consumer is not led to believe that something is made in this country when it is not. If that is the purpose of the Bill, my hon. Friend's Amendment would meet the point.
I am rather concerned particularly about some of the suggestions that there may be opposition to the further Lords Amendments. If there may be such


opposition to the further Lords Amendments, in order to reduce—

Mr. Normanton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. May I clear his mind? It is not my intention to oppose the further Lords' Amendments. It is my intention, with the approval of the House, to move with the greatest possible brevity the Amendments which have been submitted by their Lordships.

Mr. Roper: I am glad that the hon. Member forCheadle (Mr. Normanton) does not intend to oppose those Amendments.
There is the further point that there will be considerable administrative complications in the exercise of waivers, and this would be covered much more simply if we made the Statute clear by accepting my hon. Friend's Amendment. I hope

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kimball: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will be able to help the House. Many of us have been studying the substantial list of Orders of the Day, and at this stage, I believe, many hon. Members would wish to make an assessment of likely progress with the business. Any balanced

that the Bill will be allowed to go forward in order to protect the consumer against any possible misrepresentation, but in the form as suggested in my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I was not certain whether I should persist with my Amendment. I was surprised by the speech of the Minister for Trade, which went much further than I expected, in explaining the problems. He was so profoundly sympathetic, despite his description of his attitude as neutral, that I cannot believe that I would be right in withdrawing my Amendment solely on the assurances of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), although, of course, I accept those assurances absolutely. In the circumstances, I think it would be wise to press my Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 44.

Division No. 223.]
AYES
[12.25 p.m.


Atkinson, Norman
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Spearing, Nigel


Booth, Albert
Kaufman, Gerald
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kerr, Russell
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lipton, Marcus
Urwin, T. W.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitehead, Phillip


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



Golding, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Richard, Ivor
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon and Mr. John Roper.


Huckfield, Leslie
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)



Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grieve, Percy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Atkins, Humphrey
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Rost, Peter


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony
Hawkins, Paul
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn
Sinclair, Sir George


Coombs, Derek
Hunt, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cordle, John
Kimball, Marcus
Spence, John


Crouch, David
Knox, David
Stainton, Keith


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Weatherill, Bernard


Fell, Anthony
Mawby, Ray
Younger, Hn. George


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Osborn, John



Fortescue, Tim
Parkinson, Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg and Mr. Tom Normanton.


Goodhew, Victor
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

assessment of that matter must, however, take at least some account of the content of the Bills.

The difficulty we find in making such an assessment is that inquiry at the Vote Office discloses that some of the Bills on the Order Paper today are not published. I appreciate that this is a serious allegation to make, but it is a fact that one


cannot obtain from the Vote Office a copy of at least one of the Bills set down. If one refers to the list of Public Bills for the Session 1971–72—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman and allay his anxiety straight away. If a Bill which has not been printed is put and objected to, it stands over; but if it is not opposed the Chair never allows the Question to be put. The hon. Gentleman need have no fear that any Bill not printed will go through on the nod. It does not happen.

Mr. Normanton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is your intention that we consider at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 4 and 6?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I said earlier that Lords Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 might be discussed with No. 1.

Mr. Normanton: The change proposed in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 1 makes no change in the intention enshrined in the original text remitted to another place on 18th April. Paragraph (b), however, introduces a new element which was not in mind of the sponsor of the Bill, in the mind of hon. Members present in the Chamber on 18th April, and certainly not in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. South-East (Mr. Peel).
The aim of the Bill is to protect consumers from deception. If, however, a name which would be covered by the terms of Clause 1 were to be affixed to a product—textile, pottery or other form of manufacture—and that name were put in some part of the product which, in effect, meant that it was concealed, it would be logical to take the view that the concealment of the name could not be construed as an attempt on the part of the vendor to deceive a would-be purchaser.
Although, as I say, this point was not in mind at the earlier stage, we think it right that, where there is no possibility of deception arising, the Clause should not apply. It would be illogical to require a mark of country of origin, as would otherwise be required, to be coupled with such concealed or undisclosed name.
The question of non-disclosure in this context turns on the way in which the

product is offered. An article may be in a cardboard carton or cellophane pack age, for example, and the name might appear there. On the other hand, it might still be concealed from the would-be purchaser. If he wished to examine the product and took it out of its box or container and was still unable to discover a name which would qualify and require the product to be conspicuously labelled—

Mr. Skeet: If stamped on the box in four different positions was the trade name of the product, would one have to show country of origin at each one of those points? Would that raise the question of passing off?

Mr. Normanton: Let us assume that on the box or package is clearly indicated what the contents are. I take, for example, a shirt and the name "Marlborough". It would then be required that there should appear "Made in England" or "Made in Hong Kong"; and that would be a conspicuous disclosure.

Mr. Skeet: Wherever "Marlborough" appeared?

Mr. Normanton: If the box had no mark or name which might possibly lead a would-be purchaser to believe that the goods were manufactured in Britain although they were not, there would be no requirement as regards the box. If the shirt inside the box had "Marlborough" literally tucked away somewhere, say, in the armpit, so that one would almost have to examine the shirt with a microscope to identify the name, it would not be reasonable to require that shirt to have "Made in Hong Kong" or "Made in Britain" on it, because it would not be reasonable for the would-be purchaser to have to search so intensively. Therefore, no buyer could be regarded as having been placed in the position of being exposed to deception or misrepresentation.

Mr. Skeet: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but how would he put a certificate of origin on a film? How would he put it on a spot which was readily conspicuous?

Mr. Normanton: At the time of purchasing a film one is unable to examine it for strictly technical reasons, never mind about physical reasons, and it would


be stretching the imagination too far to require that unexposed film should have "Kodak" or any British name on it and automatically have to have on it "Made in you know where".
The Amendment introduces another dimension into the Clause. I do not feel that it is necessary, because it would be reasonable under the original drafting for the question of deception to be covered. But I am satisfied that the Amendment does not conflict with the spirit of the Bill and I earnestly hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Skeet: I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment, but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade a question about what happens when a trade name appears several times on a packet. Would it be appropriate under one of the trade names to put the country of origin and to leave the other trade names without the country of origin?
As I understand it, United Kingdom firms will be able to continue to use their trade names as they wish, as hitherto. The Bill relates only to imported goods which are held out in the United Kingdom as being manufactured here when they have in fact been manufactured abroad. The Bill relates only to a limited range of goods and I therefore find it difficult to understand my right hon Friend's anxiety about administrative problems. Had we been dealing with vast quantities of imports coming into the United Kingdom I could have understood his point. As he said, applications would be coming into his Department at a great rate. As things are, however, he will be dealing only with those cases where there is an attempt to pass off foreign goods as though they were United Kingdom goods produced by a United Kingdom manufacturer.
If goods come into the United Kingdom from a company like Renault or Fiat bearing a foreign name or mark there is no possibility of deception, and those goods would therefore fall outside the Bill. If goods come into the United Kingdom with no mark and no country of origin the public will not be deceived and will naturally assume that they come from abroad.
I emphasised a moment ago, and 1 repeat, that the Amendment is not inten-

ded to give manufacturers protection although they may be assisted indirectly. The prime purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the consumer is protected. In other words, the primary purpose of the Bill is to ensure that in the limited number of cases where there is passing-off the consumer gets the first consideration and is protected, and the fact that the manufacturer may be indirectly benefited constitutes no valid objection.
Under the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, origin-marking is a rare exception unless cause can be shown. Under the Bill where there is likely to be misrepresentation affecting imported goods origin-marking is required unless cause be shown why an exemption order should be made for administrative or other reasons. I beseech my right hon. Friend, when he receives representations from industry, to consider whether the administrative reasons are sustainable and to weigh them carefully against the requirements of consumers who may be put in great jeopardy through not having the freedom of choice.

12.45 p.m.

The Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill, has had a tortuous course not only in the House of Commons but also in another place. I do not think I am out of order in mentioning here that there seems to have been a certain amount of interference by the legislature. The Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) on 25th February. It went into Committee on 14th April when my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), who is now a Minister, resisted an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) which sought to insert the word "imported", and stated, as reported at column 1560, that the position was not tolerable.

The Bill moved into the other place and on 4th May the Earl of Limerick suggested no drastic change, but when it went into Committee on 16th May the noble lord introduced an Amendment which was directly the reverse of what had been advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. The noble lord had every justification for doing what he did. He said that there was no time in which to carry out thorough investigations and mentioned that he had just


been appointed. Governments should take Private Members' Bills more seriously when they are prepared to take them up.

On 6th June, when Viscount Hanworth, who is an old colleague of hon. Members here, sought to delate the word "imported" which had been inserted by a majority for the Government of 89 to 63, he was defeated by 49 votes to 45. On 12th June Baroness Phillips on Third Reading moved an Amendment as a result of which the position was reversed. There should be an end to this method of dealing with Private Members' Bills. There are good reasons for what occurred here, but great complications have been caused in the House of Commons.

The misunderstanding may have arisen from the lack of time in which to consult. My right hon. Friend has said that the people affected in industry are slow to come forward to express their grievances. Departments are known to approach the trade associations to find out exactly what are their grievances and, since the Government were interested in ensuring that the Bill had their support, the Department should have been working on it from an early stage. There is no fault here of the Minister and I hope that the Department tried to find out about the grievances of the food industry, the shirt manufacturers and the small traders involved.

My right hon. Friend says that he fears he will be flooded with representations and applications for exemption orders under the succeeding Clause but how does he reconcile that with the fact that the Bill applies only to a small part of our total imports—only those which are being passed off as British goods? My right hon. Friend is not likely to be saddled with a number of applications which cannot be dealt with fairly quickly.

There may have been some misunderstanding about the adequacy of Section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act. It has now been operating for about four years and no orders have been made under it, although it has been indicated that its provisions are available and can be used. If my right hon. Friend would be prepared to say what he has in mind, I should be most grateful.

As I understand it, under the limited classification that we are considering the

onus is on the company concerned to put origin markings on. If it feels aggrieved, or difficulties supervene, it can tell the Department that there are practical reasons why that burden should not be put on its shoulders and that it should have a simpler way of dealing with the matter. The Department can grant a dispensation under a succeeding Clause.

Dealing with canned salmon from the United States, Alaska and Japan, Lord Macpherson said that there were difficulties. He also said that labels for grape fruit must be printed six months ahead of the crop and that it was quite possible that the crop might fail, with the result that the growers had to switch their resources and all the labels were useless. Crops have been tilled and secured for many years—for centuries, in fact—and the large companies concerned are experienced in dealing with that sort of matter.

Not all produce which comes to the United Kingdom is passed off as being British. Most comes in properly marked and would not have to have origin markings on it. I agree that we do not want origin markings on everything, because that would be an obstruction to trade.

I would put against the arguments of Lord Macpherson that the fact that Lord Sainsbury did not acknowledge the difficulties is partly explained by his company's being a large store group capable of dealing with all the problems. The United States, which has gone far beyond what I should like to see, has the practice of universal origin marking. There are substantial firms which, like those in the United Kingdom, obviously have no difficulties, but there are also many small undertakings importing from the Caribbean which apparently can also deal with the necessary labelling. I believe that administrative difficulties for a company are a small price to pay to give the consumer protection.

Mr. Rost: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there could be difficulties in certain sectors of the food trade if there were not some flexibility? I am thinking, for example, of tinned fruit salad, the components of which might come from six different countries—the tangerines from Israel, the grapes from Spain, the peaches from South Africa, the cherries from Italy and so on. The combination


might change at any time because of seasonal crop failures and different seasons of the year. There might be fruit from any number of combinations of different countries of origin in the same tin from month to month. Would not it be ridiculous if we had to have a combination of 100 or 200 different labels to stick on the tins according to the variation of the fruit from production batch to production batch?

Mr. Skeet: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, and that was a very good intervention. But the manufacturer can secure a dispensation under Clause 4. Moreover Section 36, "Country of origin", of the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, says that for the purposes of the Act goods shall be deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change. It continues:
The Board of Trade may by order specify—
(a) in relation to any description of goods, what treatment or process is to be regarded for the purposes of this section as resulting in a substantial change".
If I import cloth from India it will have to be marked, if passed off in the United Kingdom as British goods as being of Indian origin. But when it is made up into a suit here a substantial part of the work has been done in the United Kingdom, and then it becomes British and can be dealt with accordingly.
The small firms in the United States probably have to obtain much of their canned fruit, canned salmon and so on from outside the country. Much more stringent regulations apply there than here but they seem to cope with the situation. I cannot think that they are any more efficient. In fact, they are probably less efficient.
The other point, apart from the dispensation under an exemption order, is that because representations were made at a rather late date some of them may have been over-exaggerated. Firms are inclined to say from time to time that they are faced with great difficulties and that it will be impossible for them to do this and that. But when they are told by legislation that certain things must be done they seem to find

a very efficient way of dealing with the matters in question.
Marking orders are dealt with in Section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968. It was argued in another place that there is provision whereby consumers can be protected, but this has limited availability. If they want guidance on the quality of goods or their characteristics, such as how clothes should be washed, they can make an application if they want an origin marking under Section 8 of the Act. We are also concerned about servicing and spares and this problem is also dealt with by Section 8.
I was heartened by the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in Committee that the Government were contemplating making origin marking orders for electric and other machinery for which spares and services were important from the consumer's aspect, that orders were imminent in respect of certain foodstuffs—apples, tomatoes, cucumbers, meat, poultry, ham, eggs, honey and butter—and that the Government were also considering the construction and performance of certain items such assynthetics in footwear. That is all very good, but there are limitations and that is where the reference to class of goods and not to single lots and individual consignments comes in.
The arguments of Lord Limerick seem to me to confer greater authority on Section 8 than it actually possesses. They seem difficult to reconcile with all the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury on 25th February, as reported in columns 1729–1732 of the Official Report. For example, one has to consider in Section 8 of the 1968 Act the words:
necessary or expedient in the interest of persons to whom any goods are supplied.
That means that one must rule out any items put forward by the manufacturers because this is a consumer protection Bill. I can understand that there may be an important point there.

1.0 p.m.

Also, of course, if this is being done in the interest of the consumer, we are concerned about quality and value, which must be the criteria. But it seems to me


that people may have considerable objection if goods are to be passed off in the United Kingdom without the source being stated. Some people may object to South African goods. I do not. I think that South Africa produces some of the finest peaches in the world and I would not hesitate to buy them. Many people say they would not think of buying honey from Canada. But I think that Canadian honey has a very good flavour. Therefore, there are distinct limitations on Section 8 of the 1968 Act. That is why it became essential to have this Bill to deal with a loophole, although it covers only a small number of cases.

Let us not forget that many people exporting to us are very respectable traders and are unlikely to attempt to pass off their products as anyone else's. They will comply with the law. The Japanese, for example, stamp on their cameras that they come from Japan, and if they do not they are only too glad to advertise that a camera is Japanese, because we know that Japanese cameras are good. The Swiss will adopt the same line because their watches have a good reputation. Wines from France are reputable and are clearly marked. Tobler-Meltis produces chocolate not in my constituency but in Switzerland and is only too glad to mention the source of origin.

I recognise that these provisions are applicable to a small margin of imports and that they will affect only some scallywags from other countries who want the advantage of using an English name to pass off their goods. They will be caught by the Bill and the other exporters to the United Kingdom will be unaffected. If manufacturers or consumers are affected unfairly in some way, they will have to go back to Section 8 of the 1968 Act. There is, however, a reason why this Clause, as amended, looks as good to me as the original Clause when it left this House. But I deplore the way it left this House and then, having gone to another place, had to go through all these convolutions. This would not happen with a public Bill but it has happened with a Private Member's Bill. Fortunately, their Lordships in their wisdom decided to put the matter right and it becomes simpler for us.

Mr. Anthony Fell: My hon. Friend is very well versed in the

Bill, so perhaps he can answer a small question. What effect is the Bill likely to have on our entry into Europe?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) will have read the Lords Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Skeet: Perhaps I can mention a point about Europe which constitutes another reason why I support the Clause, and it is pertinent. The Bill brings us into line with France and West Germany. They have this type of legislation. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) for raising the point, which I had not considered a moment ago although I had the information available.
I stress that I am against general origin markings because I am a supporter of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, as many people are. I want to see all obstructions to trade dismantled. I deplore the fact that 10 countries, including the United States, have origin markings which are compulsory. I think this Bill puts us exactly into the European position, although I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I could possibly be infringing the rules of order, so I will come off that point quickly.

Mr. Fell: I apologise to my hon. Friend for having raised my question in the wrong way. I should have referred to what effect the Amendment will have in relation to our entry into Europe. To that exent, I apologise to you also, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Skeet: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. But perhaps I can now conclude and enable other hon. Members to have an opportunity to make their contributions on this very important Clause. I accept the Clause. I think that it is right as amended. As I have said, this piece of legislation will remain intact as we go into Europe. It is in line with two of the major countries in the Common Market. It gives limited protection in a very limited sector. It does not break our international obligations. It is not a non-tariff barrier. It is simply designed to help the consumer to make a free choice in buying those goods he wants in circumstances in which he can say that he has not been deceived, that he has


looked at the goods on the counter and that he knows all about them.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) that this is a limited Bill. There is, however, a certain overlap here with what we were discussing earlier. I support the Lords Amendments on a number of grounds. As Member for Nottingham, South, I have been impressed by the strength of feeling of firms and trading associations in the area about the Amendment. I have received representations from many quarters, including the Nottingham Chamber of Commerce and the Nottingham and District Hosiery Manufacturers' Association. Basically, they welcome the Bill although there is strong feeling that it does not go far enough. They are united in saying that they do not want to see the Bill further diluted by the Amendment moved earlier by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). So the decision of the House on that Amendment will be welcomed by them.
Like Lord George-Brown in another place, I hope that the Bill will have the effect of helping British industry. I support it essentially as a consumer Measure, but I do not think that there is anything which conflicts with that in also hoping that it does something to help the unemployment situation, and the provisions we are considering are relevant to it.
There is no doubt that unemployment in the textile industry has been brought about partly by an increase in low labour cost imports. Clothing and knitted goods imports are running at over £200 million a year. This increase must account for some of our unemployment. I do not pretend that by these provisions we shall transform the situation, but the Bill will help. It may not cut the sales of imported goods radically, but it could deter some purchasers who take the view as a matter of personal choice that they would prefer articles made in Britain to imported articles. Above all, it would give some encouragement to the firms and workers who are and have been facing a flood of cheap imports. It would not do that by restrictions or out-and-out protectionism, but by placing one rele-

vant fact before the consumer, so that the choice still lies with him.
Secondly, the consumer should be given maximum information. If a man goes into a shop to buy a washing machine on hire purchase, he should know the true rate of interest. I hope that the Government will tackle that matter.
The consumer should have also the right to know the country of origin of the product which he is buying. I do not claim that that is an automatic sign of quality. It is simply that all the evidence suggests that that information is wanted by the consumer, and there is no reason for it to be refused or not given in as obvious a manner as possible.
This matter cannot be shrugged off as some kind of irrelevant nationalism. It may be that the consumer prefers to buy British products. Surely no hon. Member will criticise that approach. Furthermore the consumer may have definite views, often based on personal experience of buying imported goods. He may have had difficulty with a guarantee; he may feel that he will be unable to get quick replacements for the product he has bought if he finds it defective.
Not all the evidence is one-way. A consumer may positively want a camera, for example, which has been made in Japan because he has good experience of that country's products. So on both counts it is right to distinguish British-made goods in the confines of the Bill, limited as it is, and imported goods. It is also important that in these Amendments we achieve the object of distinguishing the exact country of origin.
The public are rightly concerned about their rights as consumers. We should do everything in the laws we pass to recognise that justifiable and sincere feeling. The choice is with the consumer, but we can ensure that in exercising that choice he is provided with the best possible information on which to make his decision.
One matter that follows, which is also mentioned in paragraph (a) of the Lords Amendment, is that the consumer has to have information upon which to base his decision, and the indication of the country of origin must be realistically conspicuous. It must be apparent to the


ordinary man that the article he is buying has been produced in the country from which it is said to have come.
For example, it was reported recently in the Sunday Express that a man bought a cardigan which was clearly marked "Shetland Wool". It was only when he examined the cardigan more closely at home that he spotted a second, much smaller label which said "Made in Hong Kong". He took up the matter with the Kent weights and measures department, but without success, because, according to the Department, the term "Shetland Wool" now has a much wider significance than in the past. The words may be used to describe any woollen fabric having a soft bulky feel originally associated with the fine wool of Shetland sheep, provided that it is qualified with the place of manufacture, as in this case. Where clothes are actually manufactured in Shetland patterns, they may be described as "home spun".
It would seem that we cannot change the legal situation. If a consumer goes into his local shop and asks for a cardigan made of Shetland wool, he may be supplied with a cardigan which has been produced in Hong Kong. We must ensure that the notice is prominent which says that it is made in Hong Kong so that the consumer will know at the time of making his purchase where the article has been produced. It would then be for the consumer to decide whether a Hong Kong Shetland cardigan was really what he wanted.
That is another reason why I support the Lords Amendment. These Amendments have great merit; above all, they help to protect the interests of the consumer. They provide the consumer with information which he has a right to expect. On those grounds, I support the Amendments.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Pavitt: A good deal of the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) were more appropriate to the Amendment which we previously discussed. I agree with what he has said about consumer protection. As a result of the conversion of many hon. Gentlemen opposite to supporting consumer protection, we shall seek further measures—in addition to the Amendments we are now discussing—to

restore the Consumer Council and the Prices and Incomes Board and ensure that prices are kept down.
I rise only briefly because we have to consider 51 further Bills in the space of two and three quarter hours. It seems that the House is of one mind; there has been no voice in opposition. I support the Amendments as do hon. Members on both sides. It would be appropriate for hon. Members to discuss only proposals with which they disagree. As I agree with the Lords Amendment, I will not delay the House any longer. I urge that we come to a speedy conclusion because of the large measure of agreement among us.

Mr. Cordle: I appreciate what the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has said. We should be moving on. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) made a valid point about maximum information. When one travels in the Commonwealth, it is a pleasing and pleasant fact to find that many Commonwealth friends will purchase only "British" in certain commodities.
It is not unusual to find certain commodities supplied to these countries which are marked clearly "British Made" which are not made in the United Kingdom but under franchise in, say, Spain or France. That is a point with which the Minister should deal. It should be stated conspicuously where the goods are made.
For example, one can drive a Land Rover into New Palace Yard and park by another Land Rover and not notice any difference, yet one would have been made in Spain and one made here. It is important that this should be clearly understood by the Commonwealth purchaser. Consumer protection in the Commonwealth is a small point but one worth making.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I do not think that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) was very helpful. I know that he is interested in subsequent Bills. So am I. But I am also interested in this one.

Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Gentleman will realise that Bill No. 51 is one of mine.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was appealing to us to


dry up so that we could get on with other business. If I am wrong then of course I withdraw at once.
I do not speak as an expert here, but I do speak as a consumer. We have heard a number of eloquent arguments on behalf of the consumer. The other place is a very wise place and I am glad that it has handed us this group of Amendments. The effect of them—and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) will not be angry if I say this—is to bring us into line with our prospective partners in the European Community, not to mention the United States. I am glad of that. This legislation is on sound lines.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) appealed to me very much. Pointing out that there were those of us who were concerned that there should be clear marking of the countries of origin on goods, my hon. Friend said it was not a question of irrelevant nationalism. There is real nationalism in the preference that some people have for British goods, other things being equal, and I must confess that I have that preference.
I also have a preference for goods from certain overseas countries with which we have a connection. I am concerned to know whether goods which I buy which come from abroad come from, say, New Zealand. That will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth. I want to know whether they come from Japan or Guatemala. This is information which can be provided, and if people say that there are great administrative difficulties they are exaggerating. The difficulties are not great and it is important for the consumer that these markings should be made, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South "realistically conspicuous".
He also made the point that some people are concerned not only about buying British Commonwealth goods but about buying a particular line of goods from a certain country which is especially good at manufacturing that article. He mentioned Japan and cameras. There are other things, no doubt, such as Swiss watches. I am not an expert but certain people I know say that they would like

to buy these from specific countries. It seems that these Amendments are entirely reasonable.

Mr. Fell: I want to intervene only because my hon. Friend the Member forChigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that he hoped that I would not be offended by his assurance that this might help to bring us into line with the rules and regulations of the Common Market concerning the marking of goods. I am delighted for the assurance that all is well in the Common Market countries. In parenthesis, what occurs to me as being important is that we should, if we are ever to enter the Community, have faith in the countries whom we shall be joining and in their trading practices. In so far as this Bill and the Amendments help us towards that end I am delighted, far from being angry with my hon. Friend.
I am not full of great ideas on this subject because they have to a certain extent been argued brilliantly this morning by a number of my hon. Friends. I do so want to help the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) who believes that we should reach his Bill No. 51—which seems to be very wishful thinking. I also want to help the rest of the House and the hon. Member for Derby, North(Mr. Whitehead) who also has expectation that you will be able to help him, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Noble: I have been asked a number of questions and I will be as brief as I can in dealing with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) said that this was a technical Amendment and that is so. It makes sensible changes in the need to mark goods. It is not just, as I think he suggested, a question of packaging. There can be real problems with things such as television sets and motor cars and in the other place they even thought that Concorde might create some problems. Within a single piece of equipment there may be other items which are not really significant from the point of view of the consumer and which do not involve any misleading of the consumer.
If I was wrong as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) suggested in even mentioning in our last discussion that to apply the particular type of solution which he favoured would require a vast increase in the number of


hours worked and possibly even extra civil servants, then this Amendment seeks to correct that because it takes away a whole lot of difficult practical problems which would certainly arise for honest suppliers who might not even know that these invisible names or marks exist and even if they did could not add the required indication of origin without rendering the goods unsaleable. This is a practical and sensible step and I hope that the House will accept it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) asked about the name appearing on each side of cartons. I have to tell him that it may be necessary for each side to be accompanied by an indication of origin because the important thing is that the indication of origin can be seen at the same time as the United Kingdom name. If there was a stack of boxes of shirts or ladies' underwear or something and if the offending, misleading name was there, there would also have to be the name of the country of origin.

Mr. Skeet: I can see the point that my right hon. Friend has in mind. If a lot of boxes have been printed well in advance would he enable the industry to have a fair amount of time to use them up before starting a new print?

Mr. Noble: Yes. This is one of the problems which we did not go into in detail at our last debate. There are real problems not only in this context but with food too, when small shopkeepers may have stocks which, when the Bill comes into force, would be rendered out of date. This is a case where a lot of exemptions may have to be given so as to protect the honest, small businessman and shopkeeper.

Mr. Normanton: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to statements made by his hon. Friend on two occasions in this House? The first was when the Government announced their willingness to support this Bill. In doing so they gave notice to traders and manufacturers of the nature of the Bill and the general requirements which would exist, come six months after the Bill came into force. Therefore when it comes into force, if this House approves it today, there will have been at least 12 months and maybe 15 months or more since the

initial warning was given to industry by his hon. Friends in a Departmental statement and by making an announcement twice on the Floor of the House.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Noble: I accept that, but I am a realist and I know that many people do not take action until they can see that the House will accept the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked me to explain why, in my intervention during the last debate, I said that the purpose of the Bill was to deal only with a small sector of imports which were being passed off as British and why much work might be involved in dealing with this question. In choosing the way we have chosen to protect the consumer from being misled, we have put the onus on the manufacturer in Britain, who presumably will want to sell goods which look like British goods because he is a British manufacturer. If then, in order to make his can of food, sack of fertilisers or packet of pharmaceuticals, he uses imports, he is caught by this Bill and must declare the origin of the contents.
It is fairly clear that a considerable number of bona fide British manufacturers will have to comply with this legislation because they will be selling goods which look like British goods. If they are not to fall foul of the law, they must state from where they came.

Mr. Skeet: My right hon. Friend has power, under subsection (4), to make an exemption order. Could he divide the orders into two classes: an exemption order made on a prima facie case which could be varied later if it could not be substantiated, and an order which required more detailed examination? Would not that overcome his problem?

Mr. Noble: It might overcome part of it. When the Bill begins to operate, we shall have to look at that sort of problem. We believe that the provision gives my right hon. Friend sufficient discretion.
I listened with sympathy and interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) said. He is a passionate supporter of the consumer, as we all are within the bounds of what is sensible and reasonable. He


pointed out how terrible it was that a person could purchase what he thought was a Shetland jumper and then find that it said "Made in Hong Kong". I wonder how many times hon. Members have bought a perfectly genuine English shirt but all the material in it has come from Hong Kong, Korea, France or somewhere else? If the consumer says, "I want to know all about everything", he will have to spend about 25 minutes reading the list of the contents of the goods before he makes his purchase. We must be practical and sensible.

Mr. Fowler: I accept that there are difficulties about this matter, but surely there is no good reason for ignoring it when it is easy to make a distinction. All that I was requesting was that the label reading "Made in Hong Kong" should be prominently displayed so that the purchaser knows what he is buying. I do not deny that there are technical problems about other goods, but in this case I should have thought that it was not too difficult to deal with the point.

Mr. Noble: I should not like to speculate off the cuff about whether there is case law on Shetland wool and, if so, what it may or may not mean. But the main purpose behind my hon. Friend's request is dealt with in the Bill. I commend the Amendment to the House because it is technically sensible.

Mr. Kimball: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not deal with the problem of the spelling of the country of origin. I have done some research as a result of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). My hon. Friend explained what had been done by the City of Sheffield to protect the "Made in Sheffield" designation. "Made in Sheffield" might mean quite a lot of things.
There are 14 Sheffields listed in The Times World Index Gazeteer. There are no fewer than nine in the United States. I am sure that the organisation which exists to protect the name "Sheffield" is organisedin the United States. I am sure that it is in touch with the chambers of commerce in Sheffield, Alabama; Sheffield, Illinois; Sheffield, Indiana; Sheffield, Iowa; Sheffield, Massachusetts; Sheffield, Ohio; Sheffield, Penn-

sylvania; Sheffield, Texas; and Sheffield, Vermont. It is not necessary in the interests of those towns to poach on the name "Sheffield". However, I should like to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam on the question of the competition from Sheffield in Pennsylvania, which is another steel town, like Sheffield in Yorkshire.
I wonder whether the name is protected against the village of Sheffield in Bedford? That could hardly be described as a steel-producing town. It may be in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford—

Mr. Skeet: No, it is not. Mysterious things may happen in South Bedfordshire or Mid-Bedfordshire but not in Bedford.

Mr. Kimball: It is listed as being in Bedfordshire in The Times list. It does not say which part of the county it is in. As a result of developments, Sheffield in Bedfordshire may compete with Sheffield in Yorkshire. The difficulty is that the Amendment does not deal with the problem which arises over the Sheffield which is in Russia. The interesting thing is that the Anglicised spelling—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did I hear my hon. Friend aright? Did he say "in Russia"?

Mr. Kimball: Yes.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In which part is it in the RSFSR or in another republic of the USSR?

Mr. Kimball: It is listed as being in the USSR. Although it is pronounced "Sheffield", it is spelled "Shefeld". When do you deal with the question of the origin of marking—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Since the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, may I point out that this is a rather diffuse geography lesson?

Mr. Kimball: I hope that you realise the genuine concern of hon. Members, Mr. Speaker. Sheffield spends much money in protecting its traders.

Mr. Normanton: I am sure that this question agitates my hon. Friend's mind and the minds of people outside, but it is fully covered by the Bill. If "Sheffield" is a place in Britain covered by the Bill


and the goods in question are made else-were, the country of origin must be shown in a conspicuous position. If goods from any one of the Sheffields to which my hon. Friend has referred are brought to this country, they will have to have the country of origin attached to them.

Mr. Kimball: I am sorry, but my hon. Friend does not satisfy me. I shall wish to develop my arguments later and ask him to deal with them.
Suppose there were a duty-free customs-free airport at one Sheffield. To illustrate the magnitude of the problem I should perhaps explain to my hon. Friend that not only is there a Shefeld, pronounced Sheffield, in the USSR, but a Shefel'd, again pronounced Sheffield, in Israel. In fact, there are two such Shefel'ds in Israel—Shefel'd region and Shefel'd plain. That being so, I think

Division No. 224.]
AYES
[1.45 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Jessel, Toby
Russell, Sir Ronald


Atkins, Humphrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Scott, Nicholas


Atkinson, Norman
Kaufman, Gerald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Kerr, Russell
Sinclair, Sir George


Biggs-Davison, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Booth, Albert
Knox, David
Spearing, Nigel


Buck, Antony
Lipton, Marcus
Spence, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stainton, Keith


Coombs, Derek
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cordie, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Mawby, Ray
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Moate, Roger
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


English, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tinn, James


Eyre, Reginald
Osborn, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Parkinson, Cecil
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Pavitt, Laurie
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Weitzman, David


Foley, Maurice
Perry, Ernest G.
Whitehead, Phillip


Fortescue, Tim
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Whitlock, William


Golding, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Goodhew, Victor
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Younger, Hn. George


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Richard, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayhoe, Barney
Roper, John
Mr. Norman Fowler and


Hooson, Emlyn
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Tom Normanton.


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rost, Peter



NOES


NIL


TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mr. Anthony Fell and


Mr. Marcus Kimball.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Normanton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I remind the House that this was one of the subsections which caused a con-

my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a serious problem.

Sheffield is so well known that its name applies really to only one commodity—steel. If, however, one looks at The Times list of towns and countries in the world one finds that not only are there 14 Sheffields, but there are 12 Londons.

I am disappointed with the drafting of the Clause. We all sympathise with what the Lords Amendment intends to achieve, but my right hon. Friend has in no way convinced me that the Amendment will provide the safeguards which we should like to give to manufacturing industry in this country.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 73. Noes 0.

siderable amount of confusion in Committee. The Minister gave an undertaking that he would look further into the appropriate wording of the subsection and the unsuitability or otherwise of including it in the Bill. The same position occurred in another place. As a consequence, the Amendment was tabled and carried. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 1, line 19, at end insert:
() Subsection (1A) of this section does not apply to secondhand goods.

Mr. Nonnanton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment covers a section of trade in goods which might be deemed to come within the terms of the Bill to a very limited degree. It is felt, and was felt in another place, that excluding second-hand goods would make the Bill more workable and more equitable and would remove from coverage by the Bill a relatively insignificant section of retail and wholesale trade.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Fell: I wish to say something on the Amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have put the Question. I am sorry.

Mr. Fell: Mr. Fell I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but—

Mr. Speaker: A point or order?

Mr. Fell: You put the Question so expeditiously and with such speed, Mr. Speaker, that I could not keep up. Is is possible for me to ask a question on the Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is. The hon. Gentleman must keep up if he wants to ask questions.

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 1, line 20, leave out "(1)" and insert "(1A)".

Mr. Normanton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Kimball: Mr. Kimball rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is also too late.

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 1, line 26, leave out from "that" to end of line 7 on page 2 and insert:
the interests of persons in the United Kingdom to whom goods of any description may be supplied or to whom goods may be sup-

plied under any designation would not be materially impaired by his doing so and that".

Mr. Normanton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 13, after "may" insert:
be given for a limited time or indefinitely and may".

Mr. Normanton: On studying these Amendments and seeing the way in which they replace the wording in its original form, I feel satisfied, as do my sponsors and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East(Mr. Peel), that they in no way vary the objects or aims of the Bill. They will make it more reasonable and effective and introduce into it an element of equity which we would all like to see.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I hope that the Minister accepts the Amendment, as he indicated during our first debate today. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for moving the Amendments and seeking support from his side of the House. He will have the support of this side of the House also.

Mr. Noble: Although we are dashing along as quickly as possible, perhaps it would be right to explain to the House the purpose of the Amendments and how they will achieve it. I have given some undertaking to the House that even if the House rejected the Amendment about "imported", the Secretary of State would have power to deal with problems that will undoubtedly arise in considerable number.
The Amendment changes the subsection in three respects. First, it eliminates the reference to difficulties arising owing to the special circumstances of any trade. This enables the Secretary of State to act in cases where compliance would be of no particular benefit to persons to whom the goods are supplied. Secondly, it confines his consideration to the interests of persons in the United Kingdom to whom the goods may be supplied. This is especially appropriate, because the problem to which the Bill is directed is particularly domestic.
Thirdly, the Amendment prescribes that the Secretary of State must not merely have regard to the interests of United Kingdom consumers but must be satisfied that their interests would not be materially impaired by his directions.
The extra power which the Amendment gives the Secretary of State is concentrated, as the House would want it to be, on the need of the consumer and on making certain that, if it was used for some purpose in the Act, he would have to consider whether this impaired—

Dr. Mabon: The rights

Mr. Noble: —the rights of the consumer. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the appropriate words into my mouth.
These suggested changes do not, however, mean that the Secretary of State would be bound to act whenever these conditions were satisfied. The power remains a discretionary one, exercised only when he is also satisfied that such action is desirable. Nor, on the other hand, would the changes prevent him from acting in cases where compliance gave rise to special difficulties. They would merely mean that, for instance, his attention would be focussed not on the difficulties of suppliers as such but on any adverse consequences which the necessity to overcome those difficulties might have for consumers, for example, by temporarily restricting supplies and thereby inflating prices. Therefore, Lords Amendment No. 5 will appeal to the House, I believe, and I hope that it will be accepted.

2.0 p.m.

As to Lords Amendment No. 7, the Bill already provides that a direction granting

an exemption or relaxation may be withdrawn at a later date. I think that this was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) in an earlier debate. The effect of the Amendment is that it will enable a direction to be expressed at the outset as being of specific limited duration. If it is found necessary to make directions granting exemption or relaxation to meet short-term problems, it will obviously be desirable to subject them to an explicit time limit within which those concerned will achieve, or revert to, full compliance. In such circumstances, those concerned ought to be able to see from the direction concerned that there is a time limit and for how long it extends.

These are practical and sensible extensions to the power that the Secretary of State will have, and I hope that they will appeal to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Mr. Normanton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before finally parting with the Bill, would you allow me an opportunity to express on behalf of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) his grateful thanks for the way in which hon. Members have co-operated with him in bringing the Bill forward?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the second time today that this has happened on a point of order. I suggest that it would be better if hon. Members expressed such thanks in their speech dealing with the final Amendment rather than expressing those thanks on what they call a point of order, because it is not a point of order.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMENDMENT BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

PROVISION OF VOLUNTARY VASECTOMY SERVICES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out from "amended" to end of line 19 and insert:


"by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following new subsections:—


10 '(2A) A local health authority in England or Wales may, with the approval of the Minister of Health, and to such extent as he may direct shall, make arrangements for the giving of advice on voluntary vasectomy, the medical examination of persons seeking advice on voluntary vasectomy for the purpose of determining what advice to give and for 10 treatment for voluntary vasectomy.


15 (2B) A local health authority may, with the approval of the Minister of Health, recover from persons to whom advice is given, or treatment provided, under subsection (2A) above or from such persons of any class or description 15 such charges (if any) as the authority consider reasonable, having regard to the means of those persons.' "

Read a Second time.

2.3 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, leave out 'Minister of Health' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
I assume, Mr. Speaker, that it will be appropriate to discuss at the same time the second Amendment, in line 12, leave out 'Minister of Health' and insert 'Secretary of State'.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Whitehead: It may be for the convenience of the House if I say at the outset that this is a purely technical and drafting Amendment, in that when the noble Lord, Lord Brock in another place moved his Amendment which stands on the Notice Paper as Lords Amendment No. 1 he used the words "Minister of Health" rather than "Secretary of State". I believe that legal advice taken at that time was to the effect that this was correct and satisfactory. Subsequently, further study has thrown some doubt on this. This is because the Transfer of Functions Order establishing the office of Secretary of State for Social Services assigned all

functions of the Minister of Health to him and the order made no provision for assigning any future functions to the Minister of Health.
Therefore, for these technical reasons, we need to alter the reference in lines 5 and 12 from "Minister of Health" to "Secretary of State".

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment to the Lords Amendment made: In line 12, leave out 'Minister of Health' and insert 'Secretary of State'.

Mr. Whitehead: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment as amended.
The noble and distinguished Lord, Lord Brock, in bringing his Amendment before another place, was very concerned about the special rôle of surgeons and that the matter of the vasectomy operation should be recognised within a Statute. It was for this reason that the noble Lord introduced his Amendment by saying, in the debate in another place on Report:
Even if it means making the wording longer and somewhat more elaborate, surgery should be separated from 'substances and appliances'…and I hope that your Lordships will accept it"—


that is the Amendment—
in the spirit in which it is intended; namely, to confer on an act of surgery the dignity and responsibility that rightly belongs to it.…"—[Official Report, House of Lords; 6th June, 1972; Vol. 331, c. 272.]
It is my view that, although something might be said for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner in that debate that this phrasing was simply taking 115 words to do what had previously been done in 12, nevertheless if this adds to the self-respect of the profession of surgeons and draws a distinction between their rôle and that of physicians in the operations which are envisaged under the Bill, for my part, as sponsor here—I think that this was also the view of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree—I have no objection to it.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has no objection to this Lords Amendment. He did not sound very enthusiastic about it. We had some very long debates in Standing Committee on the counselling of, and giving of advice to, those persons who wished to undergo the operation of vasectomy.
I think that the Bill, which I oppose on principle—on moral principle—is made slightly less obnoxious by the actions of the House of Lords in making this Amendment.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in Standing Committee, counselling and the giving of advice on voluntary vasectomy are vital. Some people take the view that this is not a matter upon which anyone needs particular advice. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you saw the cartoon in Private Eye and the picture of the somewhat harassed, hen-pecked husband being seen off to business by his wife on the doorstep of the family home, with the wife saying to her husband, "And remember to call in for a vasectomy on your way home". That is a slight exaggeration of the light-heartedness with which this subject is approached.
However, it is not the way in which the subject has been approached in this House, either by the hon. Member for Derby, North or by anyone else on either side of the question. This is indeed a very serious matter. As the Lord Bishop of Exeter said in the other place:

My Lords, to have a vasectomy is a very serious matter."—[OFFICIAL
REPORT, House of Lords, 1st May, 1972; Vol. 330, c. 607.]
Therefore, my hon. Friend the Undersecretary was absolutely right when he said in Standing Committee that counselling is vital.
For one thing, whereas the operation of vasectomy is legal for therapeutic purposes, for the saving of life or health, the law as to the legality of this operation for purposes other than those is doubtful, to put it mildly. I will not go into all the arguments—what Lord Justice Denning, as he then was, and the other learned judges said in 1954, and so on. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would soon call me to order if I were to embark upon any lengthy discourse on that point.
Moral questions aside, the very fact that the law on the question is shrouded in doubt adds to the point I seek to make, that vasectomy for purposes other than therapeutic purposes is a very serious matter.
It is absolutely essential that the best medical examination and advice should be available to those who wish, or who think they wish, to undergo an operation whose effects are believed to be irreversible. That is the advice which was given by the hon. Member for Derby, North. This is an irreversible operation. We had the benefit in Standing Committee of the great medical experience and wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) who assured us that this is an irreversible operation. This againadds weight to what their Lordships sought to do in this Amendment which says:
A local health authority in England or Wales may, with the approval of the Minister of Health,"—
that has been amended to "the Secretary of State for Social Services"—
and to such extent as he may direct shall, make arrangements for the giving of advice on voluntary vasectomy, the medical examination of persons seeking advice on voluntary vasectomy for the purpose of determining what advice to give and for treatment for voluntary vasectomy".
That really is the argument which I seek to put before the House. This is a slight improvement on an obnoxious Bill and I have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Derby, North will come later to the question of the reports.

Mr. Whitehead: No.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I do not know whether he thinks that this proposal is better than the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). I believe that my hon. Friend has an Amendment relating to reports.

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Member is speaking about Amendment No. 2 which we have not yet reached. It relates to replacements for the previous Clause—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I did not see the figure 2 in the margin. It does not look much bigger than the figures of the lines in the Amendments.
I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead who took a very important initiative in the Standing Committee. I support Amendment No. 1.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I am grateful to have caught your eye in time, Mr. Speaker.
This Bill has been amended by their Lordships. The Amendments are of considerable importance and I am glad to know that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) supports them. I am not quite sure whether, if I were pressed, I should feel able literally to support them. Nevertheless, they are Amendments of great scope and importance and they raise very serious questions.
In Committee we had long debates on the subject of advice and how people would be told what would happen if they were advised to have a vasectomy operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who has made a further valuable contribution to these debates, said that he would not refer at any length to what had been said by Lord Denning on the question of the legality of operations of this sort. I wish to crave the indulgence of the House in order to speak for a moment not on the legal aspects of vasectomy but to cite what Lord Denning has said on this subject. May I preface this by saying—

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to relate the question of legal advice to the Amendment. I should be grateful for your advice. This is rather a narrow Amendment.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was in some doubt myself. We cannot have another Second Reading debate.

Mr. Fell: I think that decision is very harsh on me, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you the reason why I think it is harsh. The Amendment says:
…for the giving of advice on voluntary vasectomy…
In my submission, it is not possible for anybody to give the proper advice on voluntary vasectomy without the people who are advised knowing the previous legal judgments on the question whether vasectomy should be treated as legal or not. This is why I wish to cite the words of that very great judge, Lord Denning, on this subject. Of course, if you overrule me, Mr. Speaker, I shall not be able to quote those words.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member said that I was being harsh on him. He is sometimes harsh on me. I am never harsh on him. I was just making a cautionary noise.

Mr. Fell: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, who are always so helpful to back-bench Members.
So far as I remember, there have been about only three people who have shown any opposition at all to this Bill. It seems to have been assumed that people should be allowed to go and have themselves mutilated voluntarily without any question of the legality of such an operation arising. It is true that there was that famous case in 1954 when there was a judgment by two to one. I beg forgiveness of the Solicitor-General for going into such a matter in front of him, but I have the papers with me. The hon. Member for Derby, North looks very worried. Even if I wanted to speak for an hour and three quarters, it is extremely unlikely that I would be allowed to do so. I am sure that Mr. Speaker would quite rightly bring me to order.

Mr. Whitehead: I hesitate to raise a point of order, but I should like to intervene on a point of information. The hon. Gentleman knows that the case of Bravery v. Bravery, which he is discussing yet again, was debated in Committee.

Mr. Fell: With respect, the hon. Gentleman says this, but in fact in Committee when I attempted to raise the case of Lord Denning's judgment, I was cut short. I am simply taking advantage of this Amendment—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman supports these Amendments. I have read the words:
…make arrangements for the giving of advice on voluntary vasectomy…
That is a matter which is not likely to be gone into. The fact that a person is likely to be made infertile for ever is not likely to be gone into. Let us, therefore, see what Lord Denning did say.
I refer to the case of Bravery v. Bravery, reported in 1954 3 All England Law Reports. At page 64, the case is outlined briefly by Lord Denning in these terms:
The parties married on October 25, 1934, when the husband was 25 and the wife 21 years of age. They lived happily together for two years, until a son was born to them on December 19, 1936. About 18 months later, in 1938, a shocking thing took place.
These are not my words; they are the words of a great judge held in the highest repute in legal circles in this country.
…a shocking thing took place. The husband underwent an operation to have himself sterilised. He was the porter at a London Hospital. One of the surgeons operated on him, and he was attended by the sister and a staff nurse.
This operation provokes several questions. The first is: Why did the husband have this done? Let me give his answer in his own words"—

Mr. Pavitt: Ah.

Mr. Fell: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt, I shall be delighted to give way. But I must point out that I am discussing a matter of the greatest seriousness not only to the House but to those people who may be advised by National Health Service advisers or by local health authority advisers to have such an operation because, perhaps, they are having marital trouble at the particular time, and so on.
This is how Lord Denning recounts the matter:
Why did the husband have this done? Let me give his answer in his own words.

Counsel asked him: 'What was the immediate cause of the operation? A.—It was because of my wife's attitude towards the boy'.
As far as I remember, the boy had been born about 18 months before. The husband's answer continued:
He was not a baby to be caressed and loved. He was a showpiece…Q.—Why did you agree to have an operation for sterilisation? A.—Because my wife was so installed. She was so installed with the home, and with this baby she had. Q.—You said the baby was ashowpiece?"—

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are discussing an Amendment about whether local authorities should give advice. Is it competent and in order that we should have a case history regarding what kind of advice they should or should not have?

Mr. Speaker: I was hoping that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) would be reasonably concise in his arguments. The difficulty of the Chair is that, when it tries to restrict discussion, it frequently prolongs it. I hope that the hon. Member will be reasonably brief. As I say, this is not the occasion for another Second Reading speech.

Mr. Fell: I immediately and perfectly understand what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I am, however, in this difficulty. If I had a great legal brain and legal training, I could no doubt put the matter succinctly in my own words, and if I had the reputation of the Solicitor-General I could use words which could be used later, taken from the reports of our proceedings, by family planners in their advice to would-be vasectomisers. But I am not in that situation. I am an ordinary humble back bencher who has strong feelings on this subject and who has not been able or allowed to give the views of Lord Denning about it in any extensive way at all.
I am sure that you will recognise, Mr. Speaker, that it is not helpful to the speed with which I am able to deal with the matter if I am constantly interrupted by the promoter of the Bill and by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), who wants to get to Order No. 51 on the Paper.
If I may be allowed to proceed, I shall do so with all the expedition at my command, and I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not be party to an attempt to hold up the discussion. I think it vital


however, that the people on the ground who will have the invidious task of advising women that they ought to persuade their husbands to become sterile should have the best advice at their disposal. The best advice that I can give, for I have no other, is the advice of that eminent Judge, Lord Denning.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend make clear to the House that what he is trying to get on the record is the advice of Lord Denning on sterilisation, not vasectomy?

Mr. Fell: Perhaps somebody will come to my aid. I am beseiged from all quarters on a most important subject, a subject on which Lord Denning's views have been quoted from time to time, but only cursorily. The subject is vasectomy, which, in fact—I would be delighted if someone with experience would interrupt me and say that I am not speaking the truth—is voluntary sterilisation of the male. But I am besieged and under fire—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend is not under fire from me. It was a quite outrageous interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), because the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. White-head) attached importance to the majority decision in the case of Fraser v. Fraser; he did not say that it was in any way irrelevant.

Mr. Fell: I am referring to the case of Bravery v. Bravery. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help. Why should he not help me? He has been the only one throughout all these debates to take any notice of the dangers of vasectomy to the married men of this great country of ours. [Laughter.] It is a laughing matter, is it, that many tens of thousands of males in this country should have themselves sterilised for ever? I do not regard is as a matter for laughter. It is a matter of the greatest seriousness, and the advice referred to in the Amendment should be good advice from the highest quarter.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I am attracted by my hon. Friend's argument that the patient or client should receive the best practical advice available, For my part, I do not see how a local

authority can give this advice, as there are so many implications here. It is not simply a matter of medical advice. There is the psychological background of the marriage. The individual must live for the rest of his days with the result. Perhaps my hon. Friend would amplify that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Fell: With great respect, I shall resist the temptation to answer my hon. Friend because I want to get on with what Mr. Speaker has kindly allowed me to adduce—at least, until the sundry interruptions which I have had—namely, the views of Lord Denning in the case of Bravery v. Bravery. I take up Lord Denning's account of the matter again:
Q.—Why did you agree to have an operation for sterilisation? A.—Because my wife was so installed"—
The word "installed" may be understood by the Front Bench, but it is not readily understood by me.
She was so installed with the home"—
[Laughter.] I am sorry, but I am reading from the account of the matter in the law report, which I presume to be correct. I have no reason to doubt that that word, which is repeated, is wrongly quoted. However, I do not know its meaning. If anyone is able to say what the word "installed" means in this sense, it may help the House, because there are one or two hon. Members on the Opposition benches whose faces are wreathed in mirth, and I fear they may do themselves an injury, though certainly not so serious an injury as vasectomy.
Seriously, I want to get on. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will have noticed that the only reason why I am not getting on faster has been the sundry operations in the middle of almost every sentence which I try to read.
Q.—You said the baby was a show-piece? A.—Yes.
Q.—In what way? A.—She wanted to have him perfectly dressed, and when he was tiny, if there was the least thing missing, she would be absolutely beside herself.

2.30 p.m.

I presume that, as Lord Denning quoted all this in his judgment, it was highly relevant, and that is why I am quoting it. Lord Denning goes on to say:
Those answers throw a flood of light on the husband's mentality. Why did he object to the wife treating the baby as a showpiece?


Although he did not realise it, he must in some strange way have been jealous of the place which the child had in the wife's affections, and his jealously found expression in a determination not to give her any more children, seeing that was the way she treated this baby. But it may well be asked why go to the length of sterilisation? Why not use contraceptives? Both agreed that ever since the birth of the child they had been having intercourse using contraceptives. He was the one who used them, not she. And yet he went and had himself sterilised. It is, as the commissioner said, 'an amazing story', and it was done simply because he was jealous of the baby. He did it so as to 'pay her out' for making so much of it. That seems to me to be cruelty in itself.
That last remark, one presumes, is part of the reason for finally granting or not granting the divorce. Lord Denning goes on:
The second question is: Did the wife consent to it? The husband says she did. She says she did not.

Will somebody tell me what will happen in the centres to be set up where the same questions will be asked? One hopes that warnings will be given of cases of this sort which lead to the destruction of a marriage. This fear has never seriously been put forward by any supporter of the Bill except the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who, although he dilated at great length in Committee, is unfortunately unable to be with us today on the final curtain of this dreadful Bill.

I will not read the whole of what Lord Denning said in case it might appear that I am trying to hold up the proceedings, which I am not. If any hon. Member feels that I am being cursory or unfair to Lord Denning and will tell me so I will read out the rest of his remarks.

The view of Lord Denning was the minority view of three judges, but I have an enormous admiration for Lord Denning and it so happens that I know nothing of the other two judges. Lord Denning's judgment was that this type of operation was not legal in certain circumstances. No doubt it is legal for medical reasons but not merely to make one's life simpler and to enable one to have intercourse without fear. That is what it amounts to, is it not? Most of the operations for vasectomy will be carried out not for medical reasons but simply on the advice of one of these bodies—I do not even know what they

will be—which will come under very little supervision from the Department. We have already been told that the Department could not itself set up such a body and that it will have to come under the local authority.

Does anyone in the House genuinely and honestly believe that every local authority is fitted to run an establishment to advise husbands and wives whether they should or should not restrict the possibility of having further children? Can anyone say that with clean hands? Of course not. It is impossible, and everyone knows it. That is why the whole question of the advice is of such enormous importance to the lives of the people who will be affected by the Bill.

Throughout the proceedings on the Bill my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have had discussions from time to time on what advice he will give to the people who will have to advise. I have had no answer. My hon. Friend has been courteous and helpful and has never refused to give way to anybody, but he has never told us what sort of Circular he will send out to local authorities, what interest he will take and what controls there will be on the people who will give advice.

What sort of people will they be? Are we to have a new type of policeman, as we had for parking meters, to take the place of doctors? Are we to have an inferior doctor to advise these people? There are plenty of advisers, people called social welfare workers, and so on. What qualifications will they be required to have to do this job?

I will cite a typical case of the sort of advice they will be asked for. Let us imagine a local authority with a first-rate medical adviser and a first-rate social service department which tries to do everything it can to look after the people who come within its orbit. Someone hears that a family is having dreadful trouble. The husband and wife are throwing pots and pans at each other as hard as they can. Perhaps a health visitor is sent to see them, or they may go to the council to have a talk. Perhaps they are behind with the payment of rent because they do not get on—[Laughter.]—the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is laughing about this. If he would like to intervene and


tell me why I will willingly give way to him. I do not think it is particularly funny. Tragedy families are not funny.

There may be an advisory clinic under the control of the local authority. The people employed by the local authority to give advice to problem families such as I have instanced are people of personality, experience of life and, perhaps, strong character. My problem family cannot get on, they are behind with the rent and have enormous bills which they cannot settle. They may be in a terrible advisory clinic. They will be in a terrible state because of the rows they are having and all they will be thinking of, naturally, is how they can make up their differences. They will want to know how they can get back on to an even tenor of married life and will not be interested in anything else. The hon. and learned Gentleman might easily have been a social worker. There are many Labour Members who have been social workers, and some Conservative Members. There is nothing wrong with that. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been a social worker in the local authority's clinic, everything would have been all right, because he would be very careful to see that his personality did not impinge on that of the man and wife he was advising. But I envisage the case where the adviser sees as a short cut to the healing of marital breaches the permanent sterilisation of one or other of the partners. He might say, "They already have two children. Why do they want more in this over-populated world? It is better for the husband to have a vasectomy than for them to go on having babies or having abortions", which is murder. Naturally enough, if advisers think in that way they tell the wife that there is an easy way out of the difficulties. They say, "You don't have to go through an awful operation and you no longer have to take the pill".

Mr. Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking half an hour on what I stressed was a drafting Amendment, which simply spells out in more detail precisely the same procedures as were to be followed when the Bill left this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the Chair must have

regard to what is on the printed Amendment paper. I would join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) will not unduly prolong his remarks in view of the business before us.

Mr. Fell: You are kindness itself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that you have been careful about the matter the hon. Gentleman has just raised with you, careful in view of the fact that it was not possible for you to hear what I have been subjected to during the past 25 minutes or half an hour. Until the last five minutes there has been a succession of interruptions of almost every sentence I have said. Had there not been these continual interruptions, my speech would almost certainly have been finished by now.
There is a very small number of hon. Members who have shown any opposition to the Bill. It would be a disgrace to the House if the reasonable arguments about the Amendment were not put, if they went by default and the case for the British people was not even allowed to be heard in the House.
When I was interrupted again by the hon. Gentleman, who is making life very difficult not only for me but for himself, to say nothing of the Chair, which fortunately has infinite patience and is always so ready to help, was instancing the case of a married couple who went to a local authority for help in their marital troubles. I had got as far as speaking of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court as their adviser as an illustration. I had said how spendid the advice would be if he were able to give it, and how happy the couple would probably be for ever after.
But I was going on to say that the danger arises on how the Ministry is to suggest dealing with the matter and how local authorities are to train and take on advisers for such services. Of the essence of the first part of the Amendment is the advice to be given. The Amendment says:
A local health authority in England or Wales may, with the approval of the Minister of Health, and to such extent as he may direct shall, make arrangements for the giving of advice on voluntary vasectomy…
The advisers are people of considerable personality. They are overwhelmed with people who have marital troubles and


with the social service they are trying to help to run for the local authority. Their life is no easier than that of the doctor in his surgery who has 10 people in the waiting room and 15 minutes in which to deal with them. We cannot imagine that little palaces will be set up in local authority areas, palaces with limitless facilities, with lots of social service officers ready to advise all the people who are in difficulties. We know that my hon. Friend the Minister, with his great responsibilities, will do everything he can to help, but we cannot imagine that he will be able to conjure up the services and advice that are essential if the system is not to go wrong, if countless wrong decisions are not to be made and countless men are not, under advice, to have the vasectomy operation with no chance of their ever having children again.
But the situation is worse than that when the personality of the adviser is stronger than that of the couple, who will be a bit off balance anyway because they are having battles. This will apply to many thousands of couples. The adviser may well tell the wife, "All you have to do is sign a form. Your husband also has to sign, but you can get him to do that. It is painless and there is no difficulty. It is irreversible". The husband may not care very much about that in the difficulties of his married life. The adviser says, "The doctor will sign it, and away your husband goes for a vasectomy. It will take 10 minutes, and probably there will be no cost to you." We are not sure about that, but the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. White-head) is urging a free service paid for by the local authority to stop the birth of children.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the cost. We are speaking about a very narrow Amendment on advice from local authorities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) must have heard the Chair, before the present occupant took over and since, make it clear that it would not be in the interests of the House to elongate his remarks on the Amendment unduly.

Mr. Fell: What I should love to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that of course I

absolutely sense what you are saying, agree without a word, and will now sit down. But how is it possible for me to be fair to my case, to myself or to the Chair, and do that, when throughout my speech I have been interrupted by several Labour hon. Members and various others, one of whom, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) has gone? By the process of exhaustion, it could well happen that within a short time there will be no more interruptions, because the interrupters will all have gone.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Unfortunately I have not gone, and I have had to listen to this.

Mr. Fell: That is a very good illustration that my interrupters will not leave, so interesting is the case I am trying to put to the Committee concerning what would happen to the country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that he is stretching this Amendment into a very wide debate. I hope he will not continue to do it or seek to do it.

Mr. Fell: I will finalise my illustration, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that what you are quite rightly telling me to do is not to be diverted by questioners, wherever they come from. I will abide by what I imagine to be what you are telling me. I will not take any more interruptions. I will continue with my speech and finish it as fast as I am able. However, I will take one more intervention, because I was about to do so before you rose.

Mr. Skeet: I merely want to tell my hon. Friend that I wish to speak briefly about this matter after he has finished.

Mr. Fell: That encourages me even more, knowing my hon. Friend's facility in speech. It encourages me to get on with my own speech and try, in spite of the interruptions, to come to some sort of conclusion.
We are discussing a series of words. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), although he did not read them to the House, counted 101. I will finish this story of the married couple, if I may. They have got to the stage of agreeing that the husband shall have a


voluntary vasectomy operation. In the case I am talking about, the man has the operation and—fortunately, this is only an imaginary couple—a week later the wife is killed and a year later the man, who has two children on his hands and no mother to look after them, meets a girl whom he thinks would be an admirable wife to him and an admirable mother for the children. But he has to say to her, of course, "I cannot have any more children if we should get married". Of course, to many young women that would be an insuperable objection to getting married.
You will now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, see the drift of my remarks—the dangers inherent in the sort of advice that will be given to the married couples that local authorities are doing their level best to look after and help. But there can be so many slips in attempting to look after other people's business. I suppose that the most relevant thing which could be said about the Bill is that it takes away from people their own responsibilities, because the advice we are talking about is the sort of advice that most couples should be able and must be able to give to themselves instead of relying always on other people to do their job for them.
The horror of this sort of legislation is the attitude "Let the State do everything and pay for everything, and let the taxpayer pay the bill for everything." That is the horror of the Bill, which is not disguised by glib talk about Amendments which come from the other place, about how those Amendments have been discussed there and the suggestion that we should simply accept them. The hon. Member for Derby, North is a deeply thoughtful man. He has shown himself to be a model of courtesy and kindness throughout the proceedings, but even he has become so tired of the Bill that he wants it to go through on the nod.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it would be unwise to try to make comparisons of that kind. I have said to the hon. Gentleman twice that it is not in the interests of the House if his speech is unduly long.

Mr. Fell: I am, of course, again in difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I have craved your indulgence before.

All I can say at this stage is that I will abide by what you say. Nevertheless, I think I must be allowed to come to a conclusion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby, North cannot help interrupting me from a sitting position. If he were able to interrupt me from a standing position, he might get on better. I do not intend to be interrupted anyway because of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and therefore I must be allowed to conclude my remarks.
I wish the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) were here, for he it was who in earlier discussions of the Bill—which I cannot discuss except in so far as they are related to the Lords Amendment—spoke at great length and, if I may say so, at far greater length than I am doing this afternoon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proceedings at earlier stages cannot be referred to in this way.

Mr. Fell: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said as I was going along that I would be out of order if I discussed them. Of course, I take your correction immediately. I want to refer not so much to those proceedings as to the advice given here, which is very much in line with what the hon. Member for Pontypool stressed in earlier discussions.
With that short interjection, I think it unnecessary for me to speak any more on this. I hope I have not offended the Chair in any way, and I hope you will realise that if any offence has been given to the Chair it has been only because of the vast importance which a very few of us attach to the other side of the argument on the Bill. This is almost our last chance to put the argument before the Bill comes into law, which I hope it will not.

Mr. Pavitt: I rise briefly to support the Lords Amendment. The principle has been agreed to. The Amendment is mainly a drafting one and I think that those hon. Members who sat for many long hours in the Standing Committee will agree with that. The problem of how advice is to be given is not for us. It can be tackled in a number of different ways. But, of course, a lot of responsibility rests upon the persons concerned and therefore the community, through the local authority, is the right channel. We


are members one of another. No unloved or unwanted child should be born into the world, and the responsibility rests far beyond the immediate parents to the community at large. Their Lordships have shown their regard for ensuring necessary safeguards and have passed this very small but important piece of legislation through their House. I hope that this House will agree with them.

Mr. Ray Mawby: My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has made the same point as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead)—that this is purely a drafting Amendment and that the whole principle has been previously discussed. I beg to differ. My reading of the Lords Amendment suggests that it specifically spells out something not spelled out in the original Bill. I ask all hon. Members to look closely at the Amendment and not to be beguiled by the words of the two hon. Members who suggest that it is purely drafting.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) addressed himself to the debate in Committee on precisely this subject?

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman will know that we cannot all sit on every Standing Committee, and we are forced, therefore, to read reports of debates. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman will have more intimate knowledge of that Committee than I can ever have.
I am concerned with what the courts are always concerned with—not what was said in Standing Committee, but what the Bill says. The Bill will not be altered in just a drafting sense if the Lords Amendment is accepted.
The last thing I want to do is to rehearse all the arguments of the past about the sittings of the House. The hon. Gentleman correctly said that it would not be for the House to decide the way in which the advice was given, or the sort of experts who would be recruited to give advice, but that it would be a subject for the advice and consent of the Secretary of State. That is right and proper.
On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves one or two questions. Unlike normal contraception, this would be an irreversible decision, and we have to ask

what will be the width of the considerations that will be taken into account by the experts giving advice. One only has to take into consideration the discussions which I have had with various gynaecologists about their differing attitudes, whether they should advice or undertakean operation for abortion for social reasons, to discover that this matter raises all sorts of problems. I do not intend to deal with them now, as they have little to do with the Amendment. Nevertheless, it is true to say that there are gynaecologists who are in great difficulty from time to time in deciding priorities in the advice they give and, at the end of the day, whether they are prepared to undertake an abortion.
A local authority is to be given the power to advise on vasectomy. We must take into account how wide the consideration should be. It is obvious that if there is genuine medical need those concerned will not go to the local authority for advice, but to their own local doctor, who will send them to a consultant. The consultant will say that it should be done for strictly medical reasons.
But what about the young couple who enter marriage and find that a building society is not prepared to give them a mortgage because the wife is still of child bearing age? Will the advice point out that if they could prove that there was no prospect of the girl bearing a child, they might be able to move into decent living conditions from possibly dreadful conditions? Would the consideration upon which the advice was based be as narrow as that? I hope not.
A young couple faced with that situation may often be prepared to get married forgetting that they may want to start a family later. They may take that irrevocable decision, voluntarily, of course, but nevertheless acting upon advice which appears to have come from experts who have been appointed by the local authority with the express consent of the Secretary of State. It is important that we should take these matters into consideration.
There are other local authorities which have a direct incentive, if not to reduce the population, at least to keep it at its present level. Would those advisers be so overwhelmed by the desperate need to keep the population at its present level as to say to anyone who came for advice


"For goodness sake, either have a vasectomy or move to Birmingham"? This has to be given serious consideration. I would be happy to think that my misgivings will turn out to be ill-founded in practice. Nevertheless, they are serious misgivings which must be taken seriously.
If this advice is to be given it is right that it should be from the local authority. There will be the direct contact of welfare visitors with problem families. There ought to be full advice available to such couples at the earliest possible moment about the kind of voluntary action they can take. We could quickly reach the position that the welfare worker is seen not as someone who is ready to help but as someone who has become nothing more than a nosey parker because certain advice may be given which does not take account of wider considerations.
It is all very well to say that every person has a right to have the operation or not. The important thing is that there are particular cases in which it appears that the man did not take completely voluntary action, where there is evidence that it was decided to some extent either by the other partner of the marriage or some other consideration. There is also the question of a man who becomes a widower. A new situation might arise. The man has to take his own decision.
Where advice is to be given under the terms of the Amendment it ought to be the best possible advice in the interests of the man and his family, without taking into consideration such matters as the population explosion and the fact that there are too many people living in the towns. Far from being a drafting Amendment, the Amendment raises matters of principle. I hope that if it is passed my right hon. Friend will pay particular attention to any representations made to him and that before granting permission he will satisfy himself that the standards of the advisers and the type of advice given are the highest possible.

Mr. Skeet: You can always rely upon me to make a very brief contribution and one that is to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I only regret that on this occasion the Minister will not answer my remarks but I feel that they should be made. A decision has to be taken by the man in question. Under the Amendment he can take the decision only by

seeking advice and it is right that he should take advice. He can take the best advice from a man in Harley Street or he can take advice from the local authority. What I am concerned about in dealing with local authorities throughout the country is whether there will be consistency in the advice that is given.
The legislation on abortion has gone wildly wrong. In certain parts of the country the advice which is given is "You can have abortion whenever you want it". In other parts, abortion is not given lightly because people realise the problems involved. Therefore, it is most important that, whether it be in Birmingham, Glasgow, or anywhere else, the best advice should be given and there should be consistency in it. That presupposes that there would be a course of instruction which the Minister would have to arrange through the Ministry. In that event, what will be the criteria? Will they be based specifically on medical grounds, or will it be said "This is partly a medical and partly a psychological matter", the psychological part revolving round the question of how the man concerned, his wife and family will be affected in the years ahead?
We must consider these matters. I accept that advice must be given; and if it is the will of the House that it should be local authority advice, I regret it but I am prepared to accept it.
Under subsection (2B), the local authority can, with the approval of the Minister of Health, recoup all the money expended. I know that the Labour Party is against means tests. We on this side of the House realise that there can be reasons for them. It is necessary in such an important matter as vasectomy that the best advice should be given. If a man has to pay for it, he will think twice about having the operation. On the other hand, if it is possible that he will not have to pay, he may consider the matter lightly and afterwards severely regret his decision to have the operation. It is open to any man to go to any doctor and seek advice on vasectomy. He might be able to pay for the operation. It would be inexpensive if it is short, but it would be certain.
I thought it only right to express these points of anxiety. I should be grateful to the Minister if he could clear up the points I have raised. It should not be


left entirely to local authorities to give whatever advice they have in mind. There should be advice from the Ministry as to the criteria to be adopted and the factors which must be taken into account.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend has made the important point that there should be uniformity in advice. He then turned to the question of subsection (2B). Does my hon. Friend think that there should be uniformity about whether people should be charged for the operation? I should have thought that the argument for uniformity in this respect was even more important, otherwise there would be a great sense of injustice.

Mr. Skeet: There must be uniformity in the advice given by local authorities. It would be absurd if one set of criteria operated in the North of England and entirely different criteria operated in Wales. I am not responsible for the Lords Amendment, but if anybody wants to have the vasectomy operation, as it is a short operation replete with so many consequences for the family concerned, it should be paid for. It would therefore be unnecessary to put it under the National Health Service. But if the Lords are prepared to go to the limit and say "You can have it on the Health Service", although it is possible for the Minister to give a dispensation and to say that the moneys may be recouped, we come back to the original point. There should be uniformity in the sense of paying for whatever happens.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that although it was said by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side that this was a drafting Amendment, in fact it introduces a new principle? This was not agreed in Committee, and it is surprising that the Amendment should be treated so lightly by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We shall require an explanation why the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is now accepting the novel principle of charges to be imposed by the local health authority with the approval of the Department. This is something new. We did not discuss it in Committee, and yet we are told that this is largely a drafting Amendment, as if to say that we should disregard this important matter of principle.

Mr. Skeet: I appreciate that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a great believer in Private Members' Bills and I wish him well with this Measure, but as well as being a matter of judgment it is up to the Minister to answer the points I have raised. They are important and I believe that many people will share this view. I shall be much obliged if my hon. Friend will deal with them now.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): Such was the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) that I hesitated to disturb that impression of eloquence and charm which he displayed to the House by introducing a coarser note such as is introduced when a person like myself speaks from the Dispatch Box. However, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) I think that I must speak briefly to reassure the House, and, having listened to their speeches, my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and Bedford, that no change of substance is effected by the Lords Amendments which we are considering.
May I assure the House, my hon. Friends and any hon. Gentlemen opposite who may have misgivings about it that the changes effected by the Lords Amendments which we are discussing have no practical effect upon the character of the Bill which the House finally passed and sent through to the other place. The reason for the Amendments was that in terms of intra-professional standards Lord Brock, who is a surgeon, thought it proper that the operation of vasectomy, which is a surgical operation, should not be tacked onto the end of the activities of local authorities in the matter of providing pills and other contraceptive substances which are available for prescription by general physicians. He wanted to make certain that anything that fell within the remit of surgeons was spelled out in a separate subsection, but I repeat that the effect of the Bill is unchanged in any substance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford raised the question of advice to local authorities. I think that if he checks our earlier debates he will realise that I was able to give the House a considerable assurance that my right hon. Friend is proposing to dispatch to local authorities


a carefully worded circular of advice in the matter of the operation of the Bill.
The Measure will operate for only a year because in 1974 local authorities lose their health powers. The Chief Medical Officer of my Department, Sir George Godber, will communicate with medical officers of health in local authorities on what I might call the professional network to elaborate his professional misgivings.
The House will have noted that charges are to be made
with the approval of the Secretary of State".
I think that I can leave the House in no doubt that we should probably hesitate long and earnestly before we ever thought of giving approval for charges to be made in this matter. Local authorities having, therefore, to meet the cost of this through the rates, are not likely to give it a major priority for the short period for which the Bill will operate.
I assure the House that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford all provide grist to the mill for the circular we shall have to devise to send to local authorities when and if the House passes the Bill.

Mr. Fell: My hon. Friend, as usual, is courteous and helpful. But we have asked about this before. May we ask again? Can my hon. Friend give us any sort of time when we are likely to see the circular? What will be in it? When he says, "But this is only for a year", I cannot help but feel that my hon. Friend is not as naive as that. In spite of his earlier blandishments to me about the beautiful, friendly, nice and pretty speech I made, I made nothing of the sort; nor did I intend to. Does the Under-Secretary realise that it is naivete in itself to think that this does not establish a principle? It is not a question of lasting for only a year. Once the principle is established, it will probably exist for ever.

Mr. Alison: In so far as the principle relates to the operation of vasectomy, my hon. Friend knows that that is available widely under the National Health

Service at present. So far as the principle of local authorities continuing to have health powers—perhaps the principle to which my hon. Friend was referring—it is now accepted on both sides of the House that local authorities should lose health powers in any reorganisation that operates. So in matters of principle my hon. Friend can be reassured.

Mr. Fell: If vasectomy, only for health reasons, is available now, why on earth are we passing the Bill?

Mr. Alison: The decisions of surgeons in general hospitals at present may, in certain cases, allow for very severe social considerations. So the whole gamut of service we are discussing is already available in the hospital service. But it would be out of order for me to get drawn into this matter because it is not one to which the Amendment relates.
The last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth was whether the House would have a chance to see the circular. The difficulty here is that we cannot dispatch the circular—which becomes, when dispatched, a public document—until the House has authorised us, through the Bill, to put the machinery in operation. When the House has done that and when the circular becomes a public document, my hon. Friend will have access to it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Perhaps I would be pressing this matter beyond the bounds of order if I were to ask my hon. Friend to pursue the question whether surgeons who perform the operation of vasectomy at present for other than health reasons are acting within the law. But why does my hon. Friend set his face against charges in a rather casual way? This is an operation which is once-and-for-all. I should have thought that some charge would go some way towards concentrating the mind of those who come forward for this sort of operation. Why does he set his face against charges in this way?

Mr. Alison: That is a fine point and a number of factors are involved. It may be that if charges were available to local authorities, because they would not have to bear the expense through their ratepayers, they might go in for the operation on a very much bigger scale. I am sure that my hon. Friend would


not want that to occur. That is one side of the coin.
The other side of the coin is the need for uniformity of some sort when local authorities lose their health powers and the whole thing passes into the hands of the hospital service. That is the sort of consideration we have to weigh. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend, but the chances are that he would be disinclined to authorise charges to be made under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
With those reassurances about the basically drafting character of these Amendments, and my attempt to meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, I hope that the House will agree that this is a harmless and desirable Amendment.

Mr. Martin Maddan: The Amendment is not harmless. I did not quite catch my hon. Friend's final words as he sat down but I think they were to the effect, perhaps, that the Amendment was trivial and insubstantial and did not really matter. I cannot agree with that.
In dealing with a topic of this sort, we must realise that we are dealing with a deep social question. When it comes to giving advice, it underlines the fact that we are not dealing with a medical question per se. Although I am the first to say that doctors, in the discharge of their duty, are conscious of their social obligations, if Parliament passes Statutes which have the effect of laying a duty—or, if not laying a duty, at least providing an opportunity which it is thought may be taken advantage of—on authorities to give advice on voluntary vasectomy, it will not be long before they are advocating that very course. That is what especially worries me about the Amendment.
It is a very serious matter to suggest to anybody that he should undergo such an operation, having regard to the effect that that will have on his whole future life within his present or future family. The State must tread much more carefully and slowly, if at all, and with much more consideration beyond medical considerations.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has mentioned the advice of his Principal Medical Officer. That is very serious and weighty medical advice; nobody

would deny that. Much more than that is involved in this issue, and what I hope—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may be perfectly right, but I hope that he will confine his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Maddan: I will confine my remarks to the making of arrangements under the Amendment, to the giving of advice on voluntary vasectomy. This is a new principle which has been introduced into the Bill at this late stage. In giving such advice, we are embarked upon something far more important than a mere medical matter. It might be assumed from the title "National Health Service (Family Planning Service) Amendment Bill" that it is all a rather innocent matter. We are saying that we can visualise circumstances in which the provision of such an advice service will lead to the State—not private people, not doctors, not mum and dad, not friends—giving advice to people to secure a voluntary vasectomy.
I do not believe that the State is not regarded by ordinary men and women as having a sort of wisdom which individual people do not have. I think that people believe that the State has extra wisdom. Perhaps the reason people believe that the State has extra wisdom is because of the debates we have and the care we take in Parliament in discussing these matters before enacting them. Therefore, any advice given through a State agency is regarded as more weighty and as more setting the seal of approval upon the course of action than advice given through a private quarter, even a medical quarter.
If we were to pass the Amendment, we would be envisaging the setting of the seal of approval by the State in certain circumstances—social, not medical—of voluntary vasectomy. When the Bill was introduced, that was not what was intended. The Amendment is embarking upon entirely new terrain, and terrain which I believe is very dangerous.
I understand entirely the difference between morality and people's responsibility for their moral actions, and the need for the State to intervene in the law. This issue has been brought to our attention in recent Measures concerning homosexuality. What we are doing here, it


seems to me, is turning the same coin upside down. We are saying that the State can move in and give approval to courses of action which individually we might hesitate to give, or that if we gave the advice as individuals, people might hesitate to accept it.

3.30 p.m.

There can be no doubt that if the State, after deliberation in Parliament, sets up a service of this sort, what will be thought by the general public is that Parliament, as a sort of guardian of the national conscience and morality, has said, "This is all right" not only on medical and social grounds, but that it may actually be positively encouraged.

It is for that reason that I am very perturbed about this Amendment. If I have arrived late on the scene it only emphasises my concern about this Measure. I hope we shall hear something about the social consequences and the moral status of the State if we were to accept this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2: in page 1, line 19, at end insert:
(2) It shall be the duty of any local health authority providing voluntary vasectomy services by virtue of this section to make to the Secretary of State, at such times as he may require, periodical reports as to those services, and the report for any period—

(a) shall show how many patients received treatment in the period, and categorise them by age; and
(b) shall state the expenditure of public money incurred by the authority in the provision of those services during the period; and
(c) shall give such other information possessed by or available to the authority as the Secretary of State may request with respect to those services or to the persons who have at any time applied for or received treatment;
and for that purpose a local health authority shall keep such records as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct.

Mr. Whitehead: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I suggest that it will be convenient if at the same time we discuss

Lords Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 1, leave out Clause 2.

Mr. Whitehead: We have had an interesting debate. I hope to set some kind of model to the House in the debate on this Amendment by being brief, if nothing else. Amendment No. 2 replaces Clause 2 as it was when it left this House. It proposes an addendum to Clause 1 which was agreed to after wide discussion between the noble lord, Lord Amulree who took the Bill through another place. Lord Aberdare and the Minister.
I should like on this occasion, since this is my last opportunity to do so, to pay a formal tribute to them for the great assistance they have rendered throughout the passage of the Bill. In both Houses it has enjoyed overwhelming support—in this House in Committee, on Report and Third Reading, and unanimous support in another place.
Amendment No. 2 deals with Clause 2 which was originally introduced into the Bill by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). Clause 2 was concerned with the keeping of records, and it was divided roughly into three subsections. The first laid upon local health authorities the duty to make reports, and in the Amendment this is retained. In another place Lord Aberdare said that he could give an assurance that a summary of the reports received from local health authorities would be made available and circulated.
Subsection (2) as it left this House placed a duty on local health authorities to keep records concerning ages of rejected applicants—those under the age of 30 who wished to have vasectomy operations and had been turned down—and to keep trace of those places where they might turn up and ask for the operation again. In another place Lord Aberdare said that this would entail elaborate and costly administrative machinery out of proportion to any benefits that it might bring. We are not all agreed with him on that.
Subsection (3) as it left this House suggested that there should be an annual follow-up into the social circumstances, and any changes therein, of men who had undergone the vasectomy operation. It was quite new to the procedure of local health authorities—something which we do not do with any other operation


known to medicine or surgery, and I think quite rightly.
hen the matter was considered more widely, the view was expressed in another place that this provision would involve an unacceptable intrusion into the lives of families where the husband had had a vasectomy operation, and that it might deter people from having the operation.
It is my view, having been as brief as I can, that Clause 1, revised as it will be by this Amendment, is a great improvement to the Bill. It ought to find wide approval and I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Lords Amendment No. 3 arises from the excellent initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). We are very much indebted to him for introducing in Committee a new Clause providing for reports to be made and records to be kept. I am glad to be able to agree with the hon. Member for Derby. North (Mr. Whitehead) on the desirability of follow-up.
Vasectomy is a novel form of contraception. It must be taken for granted that it is irreversible, although my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead in Committee referred to certain American experiments in reversal operations. We learned much in Committee about the unknown quantity that this operation represents, about the work done by Dr. Roberts and the rather gloomy evidence that was included in the report of the Family Service Organisation in Massachusetts. We learnt that vasectomy represents a threat to marriage and sometimes leads to divorce, sometimes to emotional disturbances and in most cases to less effective handling of personal problems. That is a serious report. We do not yet know much about this operation. We certainly do not know about its possible side effects and psychological and emotional consequences, and I am glad that the other place has produced this Amendment.

Mr. Fell: As I understand, Amendment No. 3 gets rid of Clause 2 which is replaced by Subsection (2) in Amendment No. 2, which requires any local health authority providing voluntary vasectomy services to make to the Secretary of State periodical reports as to those services.

The subsection goes on to detail what information shall be given in the report.
The Amendment does not harm the Bill and I do not object to the Amendment which their Lordships, in their wisdom and after discussion, have suggested. It requires that the reports shall show
how many patients received treatment in the period, and categorise them by age".
One might have been happier if it had called for fuller categories in that section instead of simply by age.
Paragraph (b) requires that the report,
shall state the expenditure of public money incurred by the authority in the provision of those services during the period".
I presume that this part of the report would include an account not only of the expenditure of public money but of what money is to be set against that in respect of income received from those who have paid to have a voluntary vasectomy operation. I must not refer to matters which have gone before, but the Bill now includes a way by which a payment for these operations could be required, as I understand it, by direction from the Ministry.
Further, paragraph (c) requires that the report,
shall give such other information possessed by or available to the authority as the Secretary of State may request with respect to those services or to the persons who have at any time applied for or received treatment.
I regard this as the most important part of the Amendment, for it enables the Secretary of State to ask for any information he requires in connection with the carrying out of the operation. My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I see it as enabling the Secretary of State to have a report at any time of the year, or at any time he wishes, of the number of operations performed, what had happened to the people on whom the operations had been performed, and what had happened to the families involved.
The most useful information of all for which the Secretary of State could ask would be information concerning the progress of the family life of those concerned. In line with what I said earlier, I hope to hear from the Minister a definite statement that he will require the most detailed information regarding the families in which the male has had this very final operation performed.
I fully understand when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is unable to tell us what the circular will contain, for he has not drafted it yet, and I understand his difficulty in not being able to say anything about the details of what he will require until the Bill has become law, if it does. But will he tell us the sort of information which he will require? For instance, will he require information concerning the sort of people whom each local authority uses to give this advice?

3.45 p.m.

In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that vasectomy operations at present available under the health service are available under expert medical guidance and in the course of care of the health of a patient. That is all right so far as it goes but it will not be the case when and if the amended Bill comes into force, because while the Minister will have to ask for information on various matters the amended Measure will not lay down for what information the Minister must be required to ask.

It would be wrong to tie down the Minister to ask for definite kinds of information, but things will be made very difficult for him because, with respect, at present all that the Minister knows of vasectomy under the present service—except for one or two items that he may hear from one of the bodies that may from time to time advise him—comes from his own medical authorities. Under the Bill as enacted he will be getting reports from local authorities which may or may not be prepared for him by the local medical officers. The reports may be sent to him by anyone.

One would like to know what sort of reports they will be and what reliance the Minister will be able to place upon them. They will be concerned with all manner of things. There must be reliable lines of communication between the Minister and the local authorities, and proper lines of communication with the advisers or whatever they are to be called and with the centres or whatever they are to be called which will advise people who in desperation, and only in desperation, could have this terrible and final operation.

Many things are not yet settled. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is worried about Lords Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. He has spoken on them, and has kindly given us the benefit of his views on them. He thought that they were all right but I do not think they are, because they do not put the Minister in a position in which he will be able to furnish the House with the precise information necessary for the House to know the progress of this revolutionary Measure which will allow people to have this terrible operation at the expense of the taxpayer. How can one with an easy mind pass much a Measure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will stick to discussion of the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Fell: I have been doing my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I perhaps strayed for a moment in order to try to save time, but at that moment I also sought to retrieve myself. I shall keep strictly to the Amendments, as I have done so far.
I was saying that the hon. Member for Derby, North has kept us informed of his view of these Amendments. We have therefore been invited to look at them. I have done so, and I am not happy about them.

Mr. Peter Rost: I accept that my hon. Friend is not happy about them, but does he not agree that the Bill has substantial majority support on both sides and that it would be a great pity if because of a procedural manœuvre it were not now allowed to go through?

Mr. Fell: My hon. Friend is entitled to ask me any question he likes. I seek your protection in this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An hon. Member can be accused of all manner of things. I do not think that the allegation that he is indulging in a party manœuvre should weigh with him in a matter on which he feels as deeply and as strongly as I do about this terrible Bill. I should be ruled out of order if I said any more about that, but I was led into it by my hon. Friend.
It is true that if there were more Amendments it would be easier to talk about this matter with my hon. Friend


the Minister. The paucity of Amendments is dreadful. The Amendments do nothing to require the Minister to do the things that are absolutely necessary. Lords Amendment No. 2 says:
shall give such other information possessed by or available to the authority as the Secretary of State may request with respect to those services or to the persons who have at any time qualified for or received treatment".
We are in the most frightful dilemma. We have a series of Amendments which have been discussed today for a few hours. With respect to the hon. Member for Derby, North, who has fought so gallantly to get the Bill through the House, we are now blessed with no very strong support from him for Amendments from the other place which do not serve the purpose.
It is true that there are procedures in the House, which it would be wrong for me to mention, in spite of my hon. Friend's intervention. But it is also true, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were kind enough to call me to speak to the Amendments, and I cannot with any conscience lend my support to them. I may be told to vote against them. But, with great respect, no one in the House is stupid enough to believe that if I and one or two others voted against the Amendments it would make any difference. Therefore, who shall criticise me if I use the normal procedures of the House to vote against the Amendments in the other and only way open to me?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the content of the Amendments not the procedures of the House.

Mr. Fell: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of course I apologise for having been sidetracked by an interjection from the hon. Member for Derby, South-East (Mr. Rost), who at other times today, to which I must not refer except in passing, has interrupted me, thus burning the minutes away until we are in this position.
We are faced with a dreadful dilemma over these Amendments, are we not? We have had them sent to us by their Lordships. It could be said that if they had used self-denial to a greater extent than they have, the situation here would not have arisen. But they did not and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, instead of trying to persuade their Lordships not to send the Amendments to

this House, has welcomed them. I am in the position of trying to talk about them. Here we have this last set of Amendments which we are talking about and they make no impression on me as Amendments which can truly serve the purpose of keeping the Bill going.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my hon. Friend recall that in Standing Committee he was kind enough to put his name to a new Clause in similar terms? Will he accept from me, as the sponsor of that new Clause, which was accepted, that I am perfectly satisfied that what has come from the other place makes no material alteration? If my hon. Friend put his name to the new Clause moved in Committee, will he now explain why he did so?

Mr. Fell: My hon. Friend's appeal does not fall on deaf ears. I have great regard for him and in order to help him in Standing Committee—which I will not talk about—I supported the new Clause which he put down. But that was only because it was a slight help and not a hindrance. That is all. Now we have these Amendments. What can I do?

Mr. David Crouch: Sit down as a service to the House.

Mr. Fell: I understand the urgency felt by a few of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite. I may not understand all that much about this place, but I do understand the protections that are open to us. One of the protections I have is that these Amendments have been sent down from the other place for discussion, and I am discussing the last two of them. If Amendments are drafted by their Lordships and sent down to this honourable House, it would be churlish in the extreme of me not to give them my full attention. That is precisely what I am attempting to do today, through the interruptions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), the hon. Member for Derby, North and others.
I will try to bring myself to a conclusion as quickly as possible. I want the House to realise how short of what is necessary these Amendments are. As anyone who served in the Committee or who has had time to read the proceedings knows, I have repeatedly asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for


assurances about the matters contained in these Amendments. He has been unable to give those assurances. [Laughter.] With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, this is not a laughing matter. I see that my hon. Friend is pointing to the clock and it is suggested that we have some sort of moral victory. But how empty are moral victories when one compares them with this immoral Bill.

Mr. Whitehead: Mr. Whitehead rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, put accordingly:

The House proceeded to a Division. Mr. TERRY DAVIS and Mr. John Roper were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr.DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Four o'clock, further consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Lords Amendments to be further considered what day?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I cannot have that. It is after four o'clock.

Mr. Ivor Richard: On a point of order. As I understood it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, both Amendments were taken together and the whole discussion was on that basis. I thought they had been put together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for raising that matter so that I may make it clear that, although they were taken together for discussion, it was necessary to put them separately to the House.

Mr. Richard: Further to the point of order. Does that mean that although the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) sat down before four o'clock, for which we were extremely grateful in view of his strong feelings on this matter, and although the House agreed without a

Division that we should move to a Division on the Amendments, and although one of the Amendments was agreed, the second Lords Amendment cannot be put to the House? If that is so, is it not utterly ludicrous and an absolute farce of parliamentary procedure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The procedure must be followed as I have stated it.

Mr. Richard: Is that so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is so.

Lords Amendments to be further considered upon Monday next.

DEFECTIVE PREMISES BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

COMPANIES BILL

Order for consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee) read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Consideration deferred till Monday next.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EMPLOYED PERSONS (SAFETY) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Consideration deferred till Monday next.

NIGHT ASSEMBLIES BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th May] proposed on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee)

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

RENTCHARGE ABOLITION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

GROUND RENTS (COLLECTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [4th February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed, what day?

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that when you asked for a date the date was given and the hon. Member was not within the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I apologise. Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick): Further to that pettifogging point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. A point of order has been raised, I understand in connection with Bill No. 15. I shall therefore put the Question again.

The Question is, That the Bill be read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed, what day?

Mr. McNamara: Friday next.

DOMICILE AND MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

DOORSTEP SELLING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (CREDIT UNIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

TOURIST INDUSTRY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

MINIMUM RETIREMENT PENSION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

RESTRICTION OF OFFENSIVE WEAPONS (SWORDSTICKS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

EXCLUSION CLAUSES (SERVICES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

HEALTH EDUCATION (TELEVISION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

CONTINENTAL SHELF (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

CARE OF THE ELDERLY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [28th April].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

CONTROL OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [21st April].

Hon. Members: Object.

OWNER-OCCUPATION (HELP FOR PRIVATE LANDLORDS' TENANTS TO PURCHASE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1962 AMENDMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (LOCAL LEGAL CENTRES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

PASSENGER FARES (LONDON) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

IMPORTS (MARKING OF ORIGIN) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

POWER-BOATS (REGULATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

INLAND WATERWAYS (IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

STUDENT UNIONS (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [25th February].

Hon. Members: Object.

ABOLITION OF GAZUMPING AND KINDRED PRACTICES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

MEDICAL SERVICES (REFERRAL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

TRANSPLANTS OF HUMAN ORGANS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [28th January].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

CIGARETTES (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

PUBLIC ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

WHALE PRODUCTS (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

PROTECTION OF OTTERS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY (INCREASE OF RATE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE ACT 1960 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

PROTECTED TENANCIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

PERFORMERS' PROTECTION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time; considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am bound to point out that this practice is unusual and that Mr. Speaker has notified the House that it is frequently inconvenient as hon. Members have had no warning.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish that at Four o'clock on a Friday afternoon you and the other occupants of the Chair would take account of the rules of the House.
Today there were 53 Bills before the House—53 items on our agenda, as it were—and it is understandable that sometimes hon. Members say "Object" before a Bill is moved. In the case of, for example, the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill I should have been prepared to move it, although opposed to it in its present form, provided that the Motion standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) had been agreed to by the House.
As I understand it, no hon. Member was present to move that Bill at the time when it was called. This is important, because occasionally hon. Members are accused of blocking a Bill when in fact the promoter of the Bill, or the Member


responsible for or in charge of it, is not here to move it.
I mean this is no way personally, but I hope that in future at Four o'clock on a Friday there will be a slight pause, not only on the part of the Chair, but on the part of all Members, so that we can see whether anyone is actually present to move a Bill before we say "Object".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern, and notice will be taken of the point he has made. I should like to draw attention to the fact that points of order at this stage, when I have put the Question for the Adjournment, come within Adjournment time.

NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS

4.19 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I wish that the television cameras had been in the Chamber to televise the pantomime that we have had during the last 20 minutes. It is absurd that we should be now discussing one of the most technological and scientific revolutions in this country and be delayed by the idiocy that we have endured in the last 20 minutes or so.
It is through sheer good luck on my part that we are having this short but extremely important debate. The Adjournment debate today was to have been taken by a Conservative Member, but he had a prior engagement. He explained to me that he would not be taking the debate, and I nipped along to Mr. Speaker's Office and collared it. It could not have been more time ous in view of the scathing attack on the Government made a few days ago by Sir William McEwan Younger, chairman of the Tory Unionist Party in Scotland—the same party as that lot on the Government side of the House—and in view of the debate which took place in the House of Lords on 7th June on the same issue.
Moreover, last month we received the annual report of the Scottish Development Department for 1971, Command 4945. Only three paragraphs of that report were devoted to North Sea oil and gas, less space than the item of military aid to the civil community. That is the

priority which the Development Department for Scotland puts on this matter.
Passing from that, I refer to what Sir William McEwan Younger said. He expressed the fears and criticisms of many of us who represent Scottish interests in the House, namely, the fact that the Government seem to be entirely complacent about the exploitation of this vital natural indigenous resource, the extent of which is as yet unquantifiable but which is almost certainly vastly greater than we have been led to believe up until now. Sir William Younger made three specific charges against the Government: first, that they had seriously underestimated the real potential of the asset; second, that as a consequence British industry, particularly Scottish industry, had been caught on the hop, unable to take advantage of the manufacturing of the required equipment and the provision of the necessary services; third, that in granting exploration licences no condition was laid down that the oil development should use domestic industrial facilities.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman say where he is getting that information from? Will he quote the source?

Mr. Hamilton: Sir William instinctively shrank from using the word "nationalisation". I do not mind what it is called—public ownership, massive Government intervention, or whatever else—so long as the principle is accepted that these resources must be exploited by the nation for the national good.

Mr. GaIbraith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When an hon. Member gives a quotation, as the hon. Gentleman is apparently doing, and when I ask him whether he would say from where he got that quotation, is it not a point of order that he should state where he got it from?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not a point of order. He is wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Galbraith: No more than the hon. Gentleman half the time.

Mr. Hamilton: This oil is a United Kingdom asset. I shall not put a Scottish Nationalist case. We as public representatives of Scottish interests recognise that this is an important asset for the whole of the United Kingdom. We must ensure that the interests of Scotland, England and Wales, and not the interests of the shareholders of the private oil companies, are paramount. Many of the oil companies that now have access to this "gold" under the North Sea are largely foreign owned and controlled. These companies, as Sir William said, have almost certainly engaged in what might appear to some of us to be a deliberate conspiracy to under-estimate the value of the assets to which they have been given such cheap access.
Exploitation of this offshore resource is a relatively new development. It is governed by the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, which followed the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf which was signed in 1958.
I will not waste the time of the House by going through the provisions of that Act and the three sets of regulations which followed it. Suffice it to say that the licences are granted for an initial period of six years, and in that time the licensee may determine the licence or surrender part of an area. He has an option to continue the licence for not more than half of the original area for a further 40 years, and he may determine the licence or surrender a further part of it during the 40 years.
Time does not permit me to go into further details, except to say that there have been four rounds of offshore licensing following the 1964Act. Again I will not go into the figures, although I have them, as to the numbers of companies applying, and so on.
As the Minister knows, the scale of charges has increased from a maximum annual rate of £290 per kilometre in 1964 to £350 in 1972. On top of that, there are royalty rates of 12½ per cent. of wellhead value payable on oil and gas production. The exploration licences cost only £1,000 per year and run for three years.
In May, 1964, the Government decided that the allocation of licences should be at the discretion of the Minister, with two objectives in mind—first, speed of

exploration, and, second, adequate representation of the United Kingdom interest. These were admirable sentiments which were, I think, agreed on both sides of the House.
Allocations up to 1971 followed these principles and were guided by five main criteria, which again I will not quote but which were designed to ensure that the United Kingdom interests were protected and that the applications had contributed in the past to the development of resources on the British Continental Shelf and to the British economy in general. All those factors applied to the first round of licensing.
For the second round, which happened in 1965, a further factor was taken into account. The applicant was to give evidence that he had made some contribution to the United Kingdom balance of payments and to any proposals for facilitating participation by public enterprise.
In the third round in 1969 similar criteria were laid down, but with an additional one—that as regards the Irish sea the additional criterion was to be introduced that applications should provide for participation by the Gas Council or the National Coal Board, and the then Government invited the Gas Council to apply for a limited area in which it would act as operator.
In the fourth round, the same criteria applied plus a consideration as to the past performance of an applicant under exploration or production licences.
I have all the facts and figures as to the numbers and conditions that applied and the number of companies that succeeded. I leave them out of my script.
The fourth round occurred under the present Government. It is to this round that I want to refer now in particular. It occurred in April, 1971. The Government then decided to offer specially selected blocks for competitive tender. They invited applications for 421 blocks and for 15 to be granted to the highest bidders. They involved a total of 24,000 square miles on offer; 73companies applied for the 15 blocks. The tenders put in totalled £135 million. Firms were not required to submit a specific work programme, and this is a major criticism that we make against the Government. The 15 blocks went for £37 million, of


which one was for £21 million—Shell-Esso—and we can be sure that if Shell-Esso put in a bid of £21 million they were pretty certain that they would get an ample return for their money. There was another one of £6 million by an American concern, including representation by the Gas Council.
I understand that 267 other blocks were allocated to 210 companies. I do not know, and I do not think the House knows, what prices were obtained, but on the basis of £37 million for the 15 blocks and an average price of £2½ million, one would assume that the 267 blocks brought in something like £700 million. I should like some specific information about that.
In 1970 oil was found east of Aberdeen, and the latest departmental estimate that I have been able to get is that by the mid-1970s the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf will be producing 25 million tons a year—500,000 barrels of oil daily—and three times that amount by the early 1980s.
The receipts that the Government have got up to 31st March, 1971, were as follows: licence applications, 49,000; payments for licences, £4·2 million; royalties, £6·4 million. The estimates from the Department for 1971–72 are: licence payments, £4·6 million, plus the £37 million premiums for the successful tenderers for the 15 blocks, and royalty payments £6 million; so the total is rather less than £50 million that the Government have got as a result of awarding these bonanzas to these private oil companies.
I now refer to an article which appeared the The Guardian of 28th December, 1971 accusing the Government of giving thousands of millions of pounds on a plate to the private oil companies. The revenue from the fields already discovered on the British Continental Shelf, it is estimated by experts who know what they are talking about, will be over £5,000 million.

Mr. Galbraith: Mr. Galbraith; How much is the investment?

Mr. Hamilton: About £300 million or £400 million. The Minister will be able to tell us because he was in this field. He was associated with Phillips, one of the companies concerned. It is a tiny fraction

of the enormous revenues which these companies will get from these fields.
Future discoveries would bring that figure up to as high as £50,000 million or more. These are the figures which are quoted in that atrticle. There are immense profits for private companies even after deducting the considerable exploration and development costs which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
The article went on to say that other Governments—even more capitalist Governments than ours, and one cannot be much more extreme than that—such as the United States and Canadian Governments, are ensuring that they get a much—[Interruption.] Yes, I see the time, but it is not my fault.
In August, 1970, the issue of the magazine World Petroleum estimated that just six of the 94 British blocks in the North Sea were worth £44 million. Yet they were given away to a group which was 50 per cent. United States-controlled for an application fee of £50,000.
I shall leave out a lot of the other material which was contained in that article. I am sure that the Minister has read it. I refer only to the question of royalties, because this also was taken up in the article in The Guardian.
It seems that our rates are below those of most other countries, 12½ per cent. as against 16⅔ per cent, in the United States and Canada. Switching to the United States rates could mean additional revenue of at least £1,000 million. If auctioning of blocks is to be continued, why not royalty auctions rather than cash auctions, or both together? At least, whatever we do, we must ensure that there is a bigger return for the nation than for the private shareholders in these companies.
There is an unanswerable case for an urgent review of the legislation of this matter, with a view to ensuring just that result, and for a serious review in depth by a Select Committee of the House. I suggest that the Public Accounts Committee could and should be doing that, or perhaps a Sub-Committee of the Public Expenditure Committee. Whatever the machinery, we must act now to ensure that we have adequate facts and figures. The House and the country should have all the facts and figures.


The companies should be compelled to come clear as to their costs and what they are producing. Above all, we in Scotland must ensure that our economy reaps full benefit from what happens off the Scottish coasts.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that some of the oil will need to be refined overseas. There is no need for that. Although it can be argued that a refinery does not afford many jobs, there is a well known spin-off from producing more refining capacity in this country.
I had it in mind to refer at some length to the speech of Lord Balogh in the other place on 7th June, but I have no time. I conclude in this way. We are entering the most important industrial revolution this country has ever known. It is being deliberately played down by the Government and by the private interests concerned because they do not want the nation as a whole to benefit. It seems that they are more interested in the private shareholders of the oil companies than they are in the welfare of the nation. This must not be allowed to happen.
I hope that, when we return to power, we shall take steps, whether by nationalisation, as suggested by Sir William McEwan Younger, the chairman of the Tory Party in Scotland, or by other means, to ensure that these national resources are used for the national good and not for the good of private shareholders.

4.38 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on his good fortune in having this debate, but I must condemn him, as a good House of Commons man, for speaking at such length on a matter as important as this, on which I should have expected him to want a serious reply, so that the Minister who is here to reply has only about seven and a half minutes in which to do so.
There is no complacency in the Government about the need to be able to explore, to find and then to bring to British shores the great wealth which rests beneath the British Continental Shelf. The criticism has been made that

the Government have seriously underestimated the amount. Let us look at the facts. The hon. Gentleman implies that we have known all about it for years and years. When was the first statement of a commercial find announced to the nation? It was in November of last year. In the short time available to me I will run over what has been done both in Scotland—because that is what the debate is about—and in the whole country.
I first pay tribute to Sir William McEwan Younger whose whole life has been devoted to benefiting Scottish industry and Scottish interests, both in Scotland and throughout the world. I have in front of me an article published today in the Daily Record which does not confirm what the hon. Member for Fife, West was trying to make the House believe. I will not go into that because the facts are more important.
Let us consider what investment has been and will have to be put into the development of the Continental Shelf. So far more than £300 million has been spent on the exploration of hydrocarbons and development. That is mainly on gas. It is estimated that another £200 million is committed for future exploration overall of hydrocarbons and another £1,500 million for the development of oil only in the North Sea—a total figure of about £2,000 million.
Is the hon. Member for Fife, West suggesting that we should put the taxpayer at risk for this amount of money? If that is the case that is being argued, it would place the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an impossible position. Let us look at the risk that is involved. On the exploration side, 195 wells have been drilled. From the speech of the hon. Gentleman one would think that this was simply a matter of pure profit. Of those 195, 166 dry holes have been drilled. That means that there have been 29 discoveries. Only seven of those 29 are commercial. That shows how unrealistic is the approach of the hon. Gentleman.
I turn to what the Government have done in Scotland and which, as a spin-off from North Sea development, can benefit the industrial structure of Scotland. In Aberdeen, NESDA says that the concentration of exploration, service and supply companies already established in or near


the city now number over 70. This involves a labour force of over 1,000. The Aberdeen Harbour Board has received from the Department of the Environment approval for a scheme to make the harbour non-tidal, allowing 24-hour access, at an estimated cost of £1,500,000. The site at Old Torry is to be developed by Shell-Esso as a shore base. The headquarters of BEA Helicopters has been moved to Aberdeen from Gatwick. BP has approval to move its exploration headquarters from England to Scotland.
Dundee is to be the main BP base. The Harbour Trust proposes to provide wharfage and roll-on, roll-off facilities for its service vehicles. Brown and Root is building an oil rig assembly yard on part of the 400 acre site at Nigg Bay. There is a prospect of 600 jobs initially, rising eventually to 900. The firm has secured a £10 million contract to build one of the BP production platforms for the Forties field. The Mid-Continent Supply Company is seeking planning permission to develop a 64-acre site. All this is investment by companies in Scotland.
For Peterhead a Bill has been brought forward by the Government and was published yesterday to provide the necessary facilities—I could give a list but because the hon. Gentleman took so much time I am precluded from doing so. In Buckhaven, Montrose, Forth, the Shetlands and Lyness, jobs and careers are being created to benefit Scotland specifically from the North Sea oil discovery.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock) rose—

Mr. Emery: I am sorry, I have not time to give way.
The hon. Gentleman's main charge, therefore, is that the Government are not doing enough, but I must point out to him that as far back as 1966 the Government—a Labour Government—were trying to stimulate industry to go into Scotland. But I warn that Scottish industry must be able to meet the challenge. I can remember that when five or six

rigs were built on Clydeside there was a factor of late delivery, and late delivery upsets the whole of a year's scheduled exploration in the North Sea. If that happens, there will be no more rigs. But it did happen under the previous Administration, and we realise that they were unable to do anything about it.
Therefore, in coming to the end of the time left to me, let me say that the importance that the Department of Trade and Industry see in the close co-operation we have with the Scottish Office is such that I have today accepted an invitation to be present myself at future meetings of the Standing Conference on North Sea Oil in order that it may be seen that the DTI and the Government realise that we are properly concerned that the benefits of full and expanding exploration of the British Continental Shelf shall come in full share to Scotland as well as accruing to the benefit of the whole United Kingdom. The Government as a whole, and not just the Scottish Office and the DTI, want to make certain that this is brought about.

4.45 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am disappointed that the Minister has not answered the very serious charge made by Sir William McEwan Younger, a charge which must be taken seriously and not in just a party sense. That charge is that the Government have not encouraged Scottish industry as a whole, and not just shipbuilding, though I appreciate the Minister's comments on delays. These rigs and other structures must be made in time. Sir William says that industry in Scotland has not been geared by the Government to take proper advantage of the spin-off, as it is called—

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Five o'clock